L IBRARY 


PRIKETO\.  X.  J. 

IK)NATIOX  UF 

S  A  M  I  K  J  j  AG  N  E  W  . 

f*  ipF    PHIUl'KLHHIA.  HA. 


BX  8403  .J4  1831 
Jennings,  Samuel  K.  1771- 
1854. 

An  exposition  of  the  late 


V 


MS  EXPOSITION  ►^^//^/' 


OF  THE 


IN  THE 

jjHcttjotrtst  Episcopal  (Sfjurci); 

OF  THE 

TRUE  OBJECTS  OF  THE  PARTIES  CONCERNED  THEREIN, 

AND  OF  THE 

OCEEDINGS  BY  WHICH  REFORMERS  WERE  EXPEirC«&* r'W 

BALTIMORE,  CINCINNATI,  AND  OTHER  PL«ES;    ^      m^^r  Nl. 

PEIHCSTGH 

OR.  ;f  1 

A  REVIEW  i  THSqL0GIC£LJ 
Methodist  Magazine  and  Quarterly  MEe&U&f~-':  ■ 

ON  PETITIONS  A]^D  MEMORIALS. 


TO  WHICH  ARE  APPENDED, 

Remarks  on  an  Article,  entitled 

WHICH  APPEARED  IN  THE 

METHODIST  MAGAZINE,  8fc.  FOR  JANUARY,  1831. 


BY  A  LAYMAN. 

BALTIMORE: 
PUBLISHED  BY  JOHN  J.  HARROD. 


PRINTED  BY  WILLIAM  WOODDY, 

No.  6  S.  Calvert  street. 
183]". 


Entered  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1831, 
by  John  J.  Haerod,  in  the  Clerk's  office  of  the  District  Court 
of  Maryland. 


\TIIEOLOGIC 


PREFACE. 


In  presenting  a  republication  of  so  much  of  our  review  as 
has  appeared  in  the  Mutual  Rights  and  Christian  Intelligencer, 
together  with  a  compilation  of  the  papers  taken  from  the  Mu- 
tual Rights,  extracts  from  which  have  been  printed  in  the  Nar- 
rative and  Defence  in  justification  of  the  expulsion  of  Reformers; 
we  have  acted  in  obedience  to  the  demands  of  our  friends  gene- 
rally, as  made  known  to  us  by  our  late  General  Convention;  and 
of  many  individuals  who  have  repeatedly  called  for  a  collection 
of  the  documents  in  explanation  and  justification  of  the  measures 
which  have  served  to  institute  and  establish  the  Methodist  Pro- 
testant Church.  It  would  have  been  much  more  consistent  with 
our  personal  ease,  having  continually  pressing  professional  en- 
gagements to  fulfil,  to  have  retired  from  the  controversy.  But 
the  reiterated  declarations  of  the  leading  men  in  the  M.  £. 
Church,  and  the  repeated  publications  which  have  issued  from 
their  presses  in  New  York  and  Baltimore,  &c.  have  had  a  ten- 
dency to  impose  upon  the  public  very  erroneous  opinions  re- 
specting the  motives  and  labours  of  the  friends  of  Reform.  It, 
therefore,  became  our  duty,  to  forego  considerations  of  per- 
sonal ease  or  interest,  and  continue  our  labours  for  the  cause 
of  truth  and  Mutual  Rights. 

It  was  our  original  intention  merely  to  suggest  to  our  readers, 
the  probable  existence  of  a  conspiracy  for  the  expulsion  of  re- 
form out  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  and  to  introduce  so  much  testi- 
mony only,  in  support  of  the  suggestion,  as  would  serve  the  in- 
tended purpose,  with  the  least  possible  reference  to  any  thing 
personal.  But  since  the  publication  of  that  part  of  the  Review 
which  was  printed  in  the  Mutual  Rights  and  Christian  Intelligen- 
cer, a  number  of  essays  have  appeared,  which  we  think  have  made 
it  necessary  to  prefix  the  introductory  chapter.  The  facts  and 
considerations  which  this  chapter  supplies,  will  prepare  the 
reader  very  satisfactorily  to  understand  the  remaining  develope- 
ments,  which  constitute  the  first  part  of  the  work. 


IV 


Preface. 


The  essays  which,  together  with  the  accompanying  notes 
and  explanations,  fill  up  the  second  part,  at  the  same  time  that 
they  present  the  papers  to  which  the  chief  men  engaged  in  the 
prosecution  of  reformers,  made  objections,  will  be  found  to  be 
so  full  of  the  proper  kind  of  information,  that  to  the  careful 
reader  of  the  first  part,  they  will  present  an  epitomized  history 
of  the  struggle  through  which  reformers  had  to  pass,  in  rousing 
the  attention  of  the  Methodist  community  to  a  subject  so  im- 
portant. It  will  be  found,  moreover,  that  the  papers  which 
were  deemed  so  highly  offensive  by  the  friends  of  aristocratic al 
power,  are  well  written,  and  afford  good  evidence  of  the  abilities 
of  their  respective  writers.  To  those  who  have  not  read  the 
Mutual  Rights,  they  cannot  fail  to  be  greatly  interesting,  and 
such  is  the  effect  of  the  arrangement  which  the  occasion  has 
produced,  that  the  whole  subject  is  presented  with  renewed  in- 
terest, even  to  such  as  have  been  attending  to  the  controversy. 

The  propriety  of  having  appended  the  essay  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  Mr.  Asbury's  intended  Biography,  will  be  obvious  to 
every  reader  who  will  consider,  that  the  personal  injury  which 
was  aimed  at  us,  was  expected  materially  to  affect  the  cause  in 
which  we  are  engaged.  We  had  long  ago  determined  silently 
to  "suffer  wrong;" — and  so  long  as  it  might  have  been  permitted 
to  remain  an  affair  of  mere  private  and  individual  interest,  we 
were  ready  to  endure,  with  "all  long  suffering."  But  having 
become  conspicuously  identified  with  the  just  claims  and  pre- 
tensions of  the  Methodist  Protestant  Church,  when  our  reputa- 
tion is  assailed  with  design  to  injure  the  common  cause,  we  are 
constrained  to  appear  and  answer. 


CONTENTS. 


Introduction,  -  -  page  i> 

PART  FIRST— CHAPTER  I. 

Presents  a  brief  account  of  the  true  cause  of  the  expulsion  of  Re- 
formers, by  the  Rulers  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  Bal- 
timore, -  27 

CHAPTER  II. 

Statement  of  preparatory  measures,  and  remarks  upon  them.  The 
Pitt  Street  Meeting,  &c.  -  -  -  30 

CHAPTER  III. 

A  statement  of  the  case,  as  it  ought  to  have  been  viewed  by  the  Com- 
mittee, -  -  -  32 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Presents  the  absurd  and  truly  ridiculous  character  of  the  prosecution,  33 
CHAPTER  V. 

The  prosecution  violated  all  the  fundamental  rules  by  which  judicial 

proceedings  should  be  regulated,  -  -  -  34 

CHAPTER  VI. 

The  District  Conference  dissolved,  in  order  to  place  the  local  preachers 
under  the  authority  of  the  Quarterly  Meeting  Conference,  the 
members  of  which  had  been  pledged  by  the  vote  at  Pitt  street,  to 
stand  by  the  prosecutions,  -  -  -  35 

CHAPTER  VII. 

Memorial  sent  up  to  the  Baltimore  Annual  Conference,        -        -  37 
CHAPTER  VIII. 

Resolutions  of  the  Baltimore  Annual  Conference,  in  reply  to  our  me- 
morial, with  strictures,  and  a  copy  of  a  protest,  40 

CHAPTER  IX. 

The  secret,  unintentionally  let  out,  that  one  leading  object  was,  the 

destruction  of  our  Union  Societies,         -  -  43 

CHAPTER  X. 

Some  uncertainty  how  far  the  agent  had  previously  progressed  in  mak- 
ing preparation  for  the  Narrative  and  Defence,         -         -  43 

CHAPTER  XI. 

The  Quarterly  Conference  unanimously  condemn  the  Mutual  Rights, 
and  it  is  admitted  by  the  Agent,  that  a  majority  of  them  had  not 
read  the  work  at  all,  45 
CHAPTER  XII. 

They  did  not  intend  to  effect  any  correction  of  our  manner  of  publish- 
ing, &c.  but  to  expel  us.    Their  patience  was  worn  out,      -       -  46 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

The  "friendly  interview"  sought  for  by  the  prosecutors,  was  an  oppor- 
tunity to  make  their  most  arrogant  demands,  48 


vi  Contents. 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

The  transaction  which  doctor  Bond  has  named  "an  underplot,"      page  50 
CHAPTER  XV. 

The  appendage  to  the  "underplot,"  which  is  noticed  in  the  introduc- 
tory chapter,  as  the  collateral  plot,  -  -  51 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

The  Destruction  of  the  Mutual  Rights  and  Union  Societies, — the  Alpha 

and  Omega  of  the  prosecutions,  53 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

The  Commencement  of  the  Prosecutions,         -  56 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 
The  proceedings  illegal  in  their  commencement; — in  violation  of  a  posi- 
tive precept  of  our  blessed  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  57 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

The  proceedings  violate  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church — form  of  first  Protest,  58 

CHAPTER  XX. 

Their  specifications  proved  to  be  sophistical  and  unsupported  by  Dis- 
cipline, -  -  59 

CHAPTER  XXI. 

Correspondence  with  Mr.  Hanson.  His  letters  prove  that  a  fair  trial 
was  not  intended.  It  was  an  act  of  usurpation.  A  protest  the 
only  proper  defence,  62 

CHAPTER  XXII. 

A  fair  trial  under  existing  circumstances,  was  impossible,  65 

CHAPTER  XXIII. 
Declaration  that  we  were  expelled  without  a  trial.    A  memorial  makes 

this  known  to  the  General  Conference,  -  -  69 

CHAPTER  XXIV. 
Some  strictures  on  the  proceedings  of  the  General  Conference,  in  view 
of  the  memorial.  74 

CHAPTER  XXV. 

It  is  proved  beyond  the  possibility  of  a  doubt,  that  there  was  no  misun- 
derstanding between  the  Agent  or  the  prosecutors,  and  the  General 
Conference.    The  Agency,  in  course  is  established,  77 

CHAPTER  XXVI. 
The  terms  or  conditions  made  by  the  General  Conference  for  our 
return,  were  deficient  in  probity; — they  are  more  marked  with 
cunning  than  honesty,  81 


PART  SECOND.— CHAPTER  I. 

Introduction  to  an  examination  of  the  extracts  from  the  Mutual  Rights; 
or  of  the  offensive  papers,  for  the  admission  of  which  into  our 
periodical,  we  were  expelled,  85 

CHAPTER  IT. 

Church  property  altogether  under  the  control  of  the  Bishops,     -       -  87 
CHAPTER  III. 

All  the  Travelling  Preachers  at  the  disposal  of  the  Bishops,  88 


Contents.  vii 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Mr.  Snethen's  papers  on  Church  Property,  were  written  for  the  benefit 
of  the  Travelling  Preachers,  in  opposition  to  the  unbalanced  power 
of  the  Bishops.  -  page  90 

CHAPTER  IV. 

The  Travelling  Preachers  not  made  better,  by  this  disposition  of  the 
Church  Property,  -  -  -  -  93 

CHAPTER  V. 

That  part  of  Mr.  Snethen's  paper,  which  the  agent  says,  can  only  find 
a  parallel  in  the  Romish  Inquisitions,  -  -  -  96 

CHAPTER  VI. 

The  Agent's  comment,  is  a  miserable  distortion  of  Mr.  Snethen's 
meaning,  ...  -  -  98 

CHAPTER  VII. 

The  high  and  independent  condition  of  the  Bishops,  naturally  tends  to 
produce  an  habitual  practice  of  flattery,  99 

CHAPTER  IX. 

The  misrepresentations  of  the  Agent  and  the  prosecutors  conclusively 
demonstrated,         -  102 

CHAPTER  X. 

Extracts  from  Nehemiah  on  the  expediency  of  a  Representation,  104 
CHAPTER  XI. 

Extract  of  a  letter  from  the  Union  Society  of  Baltimore,  to  a  member 
of  the  Union  Society  of  Bedford,  Tennessee. — Mutual  Rights,  vol. 
1.  p.  90,  91,  111 

CHAPTER  XII. 

Extract  from  an  answer  to  Querist  by  Bartimeus — alias  Mr.  Shinn,  114 
CHAPTER  XIII. 

Extract  from  a  letter  to  the  Editors  of  the  Mutual  Rights,  forwarded 
from  Alexandria,  District  Columbia,         ...  n$ 

CHAPTER  XIV. 

Mr.  Joseph  Walker's  letter  to  the  Editorial  Committee,      -         -  117 
CHAPTER  XV. 

The  Minutes  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  prove,  that  the  pre- 
paratory measures  which  served  to  establish  the  power  of  the 
bishops  and  travelling  preachers  in  the  United  States,  were  tainted 
with  acts  of  usurpation,         -  -  -  122 

CHAPTER  XV. 

Luther  on  Representation; — the  paper  which  the  Agent  considered  to 
contain  "denunciations  and  invectives,  which  might  have  been 
taken  for  the  ravings  of  a  madman,"         -  -  129 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

Tyranny  appears  to  be  inevitable  in  the  administration  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,         -  -  -  -  138 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

Persecutions  of  reformers  for  joining  Union  Societies,  most  incon- 
sistent with  propriety  or  benevolence.  The  real  design  of  those 
Societies,  -  -  -  -  -  141 


viii 


Contents. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

Timothy,  alias  Rev.  George  Brown's  Defence  of  himself,  on  account 
of  extracts  from  his  address  to  the  junior  Bishop.  This  paper  was 
written  in  the  year  1827.  It  was  recently  revised  by  request,  and 
forwarded  for  insertion  in  this  review,  -  -  page  146 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

Miscellaneous  remarks  by  Dissenter,  published  in  January,  1827,  162 
CHAPTER  XX. 

Presbyter  to  the  Editors  of  the  Mutual  Rights,  -  -  171 

CHAPTER  XXI. 

Reasons  in  plea  for  reform  in  the  government  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  by  Neale.  This  paper  was  published  in  the  number 
for  July,  1827,         -  -  -  -  176 

CHAPTER  XXII. 

An  address  to  the  friends  of  reform,  by  N.  Snethen,         -         -  183 
CHAPTER  XXIII. 

The  sovereignty  of  Methodism  in  the  South,         -  187 

CHAPTER  XXIV. 
Rev.  Dennis  B.  Dorsey's  case,  8fc.  before  the  Baltimore  Annual  Con- 
ference, ■  197 

CHAPTER  XXV. 

A  short  address  to  the  Members  of  the  Baltimore  Annual  Conference 

by  Bartimeus,         -  203 

CHAPTER  XXVI. 
Proceedings  of  the  Baltimore  Union  Society,  in  relation  to  the  Rev'd 

Dennis  B.  Dorsey's  case,         -  208 

CHAPTER  XXVII. 
Letter  addressed  to  the  Rev'd  Dennis  B.  Dorsey,  by  a  travelling 

preacher,         -  -  210 

CHAPTER  XXVIII. 
Vindex  in  controversy  with  Doctor  Bond,  -  -  215 

CHAPTER  XXIX. 
An  account  of  the  Rev.  VVm.  C.  Pool's  trial  before  the  Baltimore  An- 
nual Conference,        -----  219 

CHAPTER  XXX. 

A  difference  of  opinion  no  just  cause  of  discord,         -  -  224 

CHAPTER  XXXI. 

Concluding-  Remarks,         -  -  -  228 

APPENDIX. 

Bishop  Asbury's  Life,  -  -  -  -  230 


Ixisnowextensirely  known,  that  more  than  thirty  ministers  and 
members,  of  the  Methodist  E.  Church  in  Baltimore,  were  ex- 
communicated for  being  members  of  the  Union  Society,  and 
publishing  and  patronizing  the  periodical,  which  was  known  by 
the  title  "The  Mutual  Rights,  of  the  ministers  and  members  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church."    It  ought  also  to  be  known, 
that  this  memorable  transaction  was  intended  to  expel  reform 
out  of  the  church,  and  that  the  measures  which  were  adopted, 
were  contrived  and  conducted,  with  the  hope,  that  the  real  ob- 
ject could  be  concealed,  and  the  public  be  induced  to  believe, 
the  church  authorities  had  only  exercised  commendable  dis- 
cipline upon  those  thirty  and  more  individuals,  for  publishing  and 
aiding  in  the  publication  of  certain  essays  and  papers,  said  to  be 
calumnious  and  inflammatory.    The  exposition  and  review  will 
disclose  some  curious  and  important  things,  in  respect  to  the 
management,  by  which  the  men  in  power  accomplished  their  in- 
tention; and  will  satisfactorily  unravel  the  policy,  which  was 
expected  also  to  insure  the  approbation  of  the  community. 

The  Editors  of  the  Quarterly  Review,  #c.  have  laboured  hard 
to  set  aside  this  imputation,  and  justify  the  proceedings  of  the 
prosecution. 

The  Baltimore  Annual  Conference  considered  those  proceed- 
ings to  have  been  so  commendable  as  to  merit  the  apellation, 
of  "wholesome  and  sound  discipline." 

To  develope  the  true  design  of  the  church  authorities,  to 
show  how  great  the  injustice  done  to  reformers,  and  how  neces- 
sary the  struggle  which  brought  upon  them  the  displeasure  of 
the  government,  are  the  objects  and  end  of  the  review. 

In  conducting  our  investigations,  facts,  known  to  be  incontro- 
vertible, are  stated  as  such.  Inferences,  taken  from  facts  and 
circumstances,  are  so  presented,  that  their  value  or  intended  pur- 
2 


6 


port  cannot  easily  be  mistaken.  In  pursuing  the  obliquities  of 
the  prosecution,  it  has  been  found  necessary,  in  some  instances, 
to  introduce  probabilities  into  the  argument;  and  considering  the 
circumstances  in  which  the  reviewer  has  been  placed,  this  will 
appear  to  have  been  both  admissible  and  proper. 

Certain  preparatory  movements  induced  us  to  believe,  that  an 
attempt  would  be  made  to  sustain  the  contemplated  expulsions, 
by  means  of  a  publication,  to  be  modified  as  circumstances  might 
indicate;  and  which,  accordingly,  turned  out  to  be,  the  Narra- 
tive and  Defence,  &c.  &c. 

The  incidents  which  excited  attention  to  this  point,  and  the 
fact,  that  the  man  who  was  believed  to  be  the  chief  agent  in  the 
business,  who  made  the  extracts  from  the  Mutual  Rights,  and 
wrote  the  Narrative  and  Defence  for  the  prosecutors,  were  all  in 
view,  when  the  remarks  which  were  made  on  this  point,  were 
written. 

There  was  positive  proof  of  a  conspiracy,  for  the  purpose  of 
securing  our  excommunication,  by  an  unanimous  vote  of  all  the 
official  men  in  the  station.  The  pains  which  were  taken  to  gain 
this  point,  strengthened  the  conviction,  that  the  occasion  would 
require  a  competent  agent,  to  give  to  the  intended  operations, 
their  proper  direction  and  effect.  Moreover,  there  were  signs  of 
the  existence  of  such  an  agency,  which  were  not  of  doubtful 
interpretation.  The  review  therefore,  inevitably  turns  attention 
to  this  matter. 

The  printing  committee,  who  superintended  the  periodical, 
intended  no  personal  attack  upon  the  preachers,  from  the  Bishops 
down  to  the  least  important  individual  among  them.  They  de- 
signed a  benefit,  and  not  an  injury,  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  It  was  their  purpose  to  bring  about  an  improvement 
in  her  government,  and  nothing  more.  It  therefore,  became  our 
duty  to  review  the  extracts  and  comments,  which  were  made  by 
the  agent  of  the  prosecution,  and  show,  that  the  alleged  calum- 
ny and  inflammatory  imputations,  which  he  has  placed  to  the 
account  of  the  Union  Society,  are  in  reality  the  productions  of 
his  own  genius; — and,  that  it  required  his  utmost  skill  to  make 
the  Narrative  and  Defence,  to  answer  its  intended  purpose. 
It  was  necessary,  that  it  should  wear  the  appearance  of  a  faith- 
ful history  of  the  citations,  the  charges  and  specifications,  the 
character  and  manner  of  the  Defence  of  the  accused,  and  of  the 
final  decisions;  and  in  order  to  make  the  whole,  the  more  to 
assume  the  appearance  of  honesty  or  plausibility;  to  take  time, 


7 


to  plan  and  manage  as  circumstances  might  indicate;  to  intro- 
duce "an  under-plot,"  and  a  collateral  plot,  &c.  &c.  We  there- 
fore considered  it  necessary  to  ferret  out  and  disclose  the  more 
important  parts  of  these  secret  machinations. 

It  was  deemed  highly  important,  that  our  views  of  the  pro- 
ceedings, should  be  submitted  to  the  public.  Because,  if  we 
erred  in  our  opinions  respecting  the  design  of  the  prosecution, 
and  of  the  measures  which  were  taken  for  the  accomplishment 
of  that  design;  nevertheless,  as  we  had  very  cogent  reasons  for 
adopting  those  opinions,  sensible  men  will  admit,  that  we  ought 
to  have  been  excused  for  refusing  to  appear  before  a  tribunal, 
which  we  conscientiously  considered,  not  only  illegal,  but  also  dis- 
qualified to  do  us  justice;  and  the  more  especially  so,  when  we 
did  not  believe  that  we  had  transgressed  any  known  law.  If  our 
opinions  were  right,  it  will  be  still  more  clear,  that  submission  to 
such  a  trial  as  necessarily  awaited  us,  would  have  been  an  unpar- 
donable dereliction  of  principle  and  duty.  The  review  will  pre- 
pare the  reader  to  perceive  the  propriety  of  our  course,  and  to 
appreciate  the  protest  of  the  reformers. 

So  far  as  our  exposition  has  been  published  in  the  Mutual 
Rights  and  Christian  Intelligencer,  although  its  ultimate  inten- 
tion was  but  imperfectly  understood,  it  has  given  great  offence 
to  those  who  are  implicated;  and  in  order  to  prevent  its  effect, 
another  effort  has  been  made,  of  the  same  kind,  and  by  the  same 
genius,  which  brought  forth  the  Narrative  and  Defence.  Doctor 
Bond,  in  particular,  has  taken  great  umbrage  at  the  mere  insinu- 
ation, that  he  was  the  agent  of  the  power  party,  as  well  as  the 
writer  of  the  "plain  statement  of  the  whole  affair,  &c."  It  is 
perhaps  due  to  Dr.  Bond,  and  the  public,  that  the  reasons  should 
be  assigned  for  having  exhibited  him  in  that  relation  to  the  pro- 
secution;— for  we  have  no  inclination  to  misrepresent  him,  or 
misconstrue  his  writings. 

The  Doctor,  in  a  late  publication,  says  our  inferences  in  respect 
to  this  point,  were  taken  from  two  circumstances  only.  If  those 
two  were  all  that  had  weight,  it  might  perhaps  be  inferred,  that 
the  reviewer  had  indulged  in  unfounded  and  reprehensible  sus- 
picion. There  are,  however,  other  circumstances,  which  came 
into  the  account.  We  had  in  fact,  nine  or  more  considerations, 
which  taken  collectively,  approximate  to  a  demonstration  of  the 
reasonableness  and  truth  of  our  opinion.  They  are  the  following: 

1st.  When  the  lay  members  of  the  Baltimore  station,  met  in 
the  conference  room,  a  short  time  previous  to  the  General  Con 


& 


ference  of  1824,  and  appointed  a  committee,  to  prepare  an  ad- 
dress or  memorial  on  the  subject  of  a  lay  delegation  to  be  sub-* 
mitted  to  the  conference,  Dr.  Bond,  at  that  time  a  preacher,  in- 
sisted on  being  admitted  among  them,  as  a  layman,  that  he  might 
be  placed  on  the  committee.  As  he  had  not  then  been  ordain- 
ed, his  request  was  granted,  and  he  officiated  as  secretary. 

The  result  of  their  labours  was  the  production  of  that  memo- 
rable paper,  which  surrendered  all  claim  to  a  lay  representation, 
as  a  matter  of  right,  and  proposed  to  rest  the  whole  subject  upon 
the  ground  of  expediency.  In  the  instant,  when  that  part  of 
their  report  was  read,  which  contained  this  fatal  proposition,  we 
considered  it  a  known  surrender  of  the  cause  of  reform;  and  we 
have  continued  to  view  it  in  the  same  light,  until  now.  Prior  to 
that  time,  the  Doctor  was  an  active  patron  to  the  Wesleyan  Re- 
pository, probably,  one  of  the  writers  for  that  work.  Since  that 
time,  we  have  not  known  any  act  of  his,  which  favoured  our 
cause.  This  circumstance  indicated  "disaffection"  to  the  work 
of  reform,  and  had  some  influence,  we  admit,  in  modifying  our 
feelings  in  view  of  the  second  consideration. 

2d.  When  the  chairman  of  our  printing  committee,  and  Mr. 
McCaine,  were  called  on  to  meet  Bishop  Hedding,  in  the  con- 
ference room,  and  answer  to  his  demand  of  the  proper  name  of 
Timothy,  they  found  him  attended  by  Bishop  George,  Rev.  John 
Davis,  and  doctor  Bond. 

This  incident  occurred  some  time  within  the  first  week  in 
April,  1827.  The  expulsions  in  Tennessee  had  then  taken 
place.  Likewise  those  in  North  Carolina;  and  the  latter  had 
received  the  confirmation  of  the  Virginia  Conference.  More- 
over, we  had  received  intimations,  that  the  Baltimore  Confer- 
ence, which  was  then  at  hand,  was  expected  to  deal  with  Rev. 
D.  B.  Dorsey.  Under  all  these  stormy  appearances,  we  think 
the  Doctor  ought  to  have  excused  us,  if  we  then  began  to  think, 
that  something  more  was  agitated  in  the  cabinet,  than  the  single 
inquiry,  who  was  Timothy. 

3d.  Soon  after  the  suspension  of  the  Rev'd  D.  B.  Dorsey, 
doctor  Bond,  as  the  champion  of  the  power  party,  wrote  and 
caused  to  be  published,  "An  Appeal  to  the  Methodists,  &lc."  in 
opposition  to  the  principles  and  objects  of  the  Reformers.  In 
the  introduction  to  a  "brief  review"  of  this  appeal,  Mr.  Shinn 
has  the  following  remarks.  "How  can  a  man  sit  down  calmly 
to  examine,  and  impartially  to  answer  a  book  of  sixty-nine  pages, 
when  he  expects  the  arm  of  authority  to  be  upon  him,  before  he 


9 


shall  have  arrived  at  the  middle  of  his  investigation?  Our  op- 
ponents  have  systematically  commenced  the  work  of  suspension 
and  expulsion;  they  are  using  all  imaginable  efforts  to  enlist  against 
us  the  passions  of  the  people;  and  the  doctor's  performance, 
coming  out  at  this  time,  appears  but  too  well  calculated  to  fan  the 
flame.  We  may  reasonably  expect,  it  will  be  used  for  the  accom- 
plishment of  this  object,  as  extensively  as  possible."  If  so  well  cal- 
culated for  such  a  use,  with  the  two  preceding  reasons  in  view, 
were  we  not  pardonable  in  thinking,  the  "Appeal,  &c."  was 
written  for  the  very  purpose  mentioned  by  Mr.  Shinn?  How- 
ever much  we  might  have  endeavoured  to  "hope  all  things,"  the 
doctor  soon  gave  us  conclusive  proof,  that  our  apprehension 
concerning  his  agency,  was  but  too  well  founded. 

4th.  Doctor  Bond  convened  the  meeting  at  the  corner  of  Pitt 
and  Front  streets.  His  own  account  of  it  is,  that  his  object  was 
to  make  a  publication  under  the  sanction  of  this  called  meeting, 
in  defence  of  the  Baltimore  Annual  Conference,  in  the  case  of 
Rev'd.  D.  B.  Dorsey.  The  meeting  was  held  on  the  7th  August, 
1827,  thirty-two  days  only  before  we  were  summoned  by  Mr. 
Hanson,  to  appear  and  answer  to  charges,  which  were  preferred 
by  the  seven  prosecutors.  The  doctor's  publication  was  made, 
and  it  received  the  sanction  of  the  meeting,  with  the  following 
preface,  viz:  "At  a  very  large  meeting  of  the  male  members  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  Baltimore  City  and  the  East 
Baltimore  stations,  exclusive  of  the  members  of  the  Union  Socie- 
ty, convened  by  public  notice  given  in  all  our  churches,  and  held 
in  the  city  of  Baltimore  on  the  7th  day  of  August,  1827;  brother 
William  Wilkins  being  called  to  the  chair,  &c.  the  following 
preamble,  resolutions,  and  address  to  the  ministers  and  members 
of  the  church  in  the  United  States,  were  freely  discussed  and 
adopted,  with  only  three  or  four  dissenting  votes." 

A  part  of  the  address  is  as  follows,  viz:  "The  opinion  of  the 
Conference,  that  the  Mutual  Rights  was  an  improper  work,  was 
not  founded  on  its  being  a  work  on  church  government,  &c. 
&c.  *  *  *  *  but  it  was  founded  on  the  fact,  that  the  Mutual  Rights 
was  a  work,  in  which  anonymous  writers  were  permitted  to 
abuse  and  defame  the  travelling  preachers — to  deprive  them,  if 
possible,  of  the  confidence  and  support  of  the  people  of  their 
charge,  by  holding  them  up  to  public  odium,  and  by  misrepre. 
senting  both  their  actions  and  motives." 

On  the  8th  September,  1827,  we  received  information,  that 
charges  had  been  preferred;  and  a  part  of  the  second  specifr 


10 


cation  reads  thus: — "The  Mutual  Rights  of  the  ministers  and 
"members,  &c.  contains  much  that  inveighs  against  the  Disci- 
pline, &c.  ;  and  that  is  abusive  or  speaks  evil  of  a  part, 
if  not  most  of  the  ministers  of  that  church,"  &c.  &c.  Is  it  not 
clear  to  the  most  ordinary  apprehension,  that  when  this  large 
meeting,  almost  unanimously,  voted  for  the  part  of  the  ad- 
dress above  quoted,  doctor  Bond,  who  had  called  the  meeting, 
written  the  address,  and  caused  it  to  be  freely  discussed,  had  by 
this  measure,  secured  their  approbation  of  the  intended  charge 
as  stated  in  the  specification?  The  large  meeting  voted,  that  it 
was  a  fact,  that  writers  were  permitted  in  the  Mutual  Rights, 
to  abuse  and  defame  the  travelling  preachers,  &c.  by  misrepre- 
senting both  their  actions  and  motives.  The  prosecutors  charged 
us  with  publishing,  in  the  Mutual  Rights,  *  *  #  much  that  is 
abusive  or  speaks  evil  of  a  part,  if  not  of  most  of  the  min- 
isters, &x. 

In  another  part  of  the  address,  and  which  in  like  manner,  had 
the  vote-  of  doctor  Bond's  called  meeting,  we  find  the  following, 
viz:  "The  present  agitations  may  be  consequent  upon  some 
general  declension,  in  reference  to  the  strict  administration  of 
that  wholesome  discipline,  which  governed  our  fathers,  and 
distinguished  them  as  ca  peculiar  people.'  The  present  storm 
may  be  necessary  to  defecate  and  purify  the  church  from  Laodi- 
cean, lukewarm  professors."  Hear  what  the  doctor's  address 
proposed,  and  for  which  he  obtained  the  approbation  of  almost 
the  whole  of  this  large  meeting!"  " Strict  administration  of  dis- 
cipline to  defecate;"  that  is,  to  purge  off  the  dregs,  and  by  so 
doing,  to  purify  the  church  from  lukewarm  professors.  Can  any 
reader  fail  to  see,  the  proof  of  an  agency,  making  preparation 
for  our  expulsion? 

The  doctor  called  a  large  meeting,  which  was  attended  by  al- 
most the  whole  of  the  male  members  of  the  church,  including 
in  course,  the  official  men,  and  so  secured  their  vote,  upon 
points  which  involved  all  that  was  necessary,  to  ensure  success, 
in  the  contemplated  "defecation"  of  the  church.  Surely  it  was 
an  act  of  the  utmost  preparatory  importance;  and,  if  there  were 
no  other  testimony,  this  one  measure  proves,  that  he  was,  not 
only  an  agent,  but  a  very  provident  and  efficient  agent,  by  whose 
management  in  this  single  instance,  we  were  obliged  to  know, 
that  we  were  condemned,  before  we  were  cited  to  trial. 

5th.  About  one  week  after  the  prosecutions  were  commenced, 
doctor  Bond,  "ventured  alone  and  without  the  knowledge  of 


11 


the  prosecutors,  upon  the  business  of  negotiation."  He  "had 
not  yet  relinquished  the  hope,  that  some  conciliatory  course 
might  be  devised,  by  which  the  necessity  of  further  proceedings 
before  the  constituted  authorities  of  the  church,  might  be 
removed."  In  narrating  and  defending  about  this  affair,  thus 
far,  the  doctor  wrote  according  to  the  truth  of  the  case.  He 
wrote  what  he  felt  on  the  subject.  "He  ventured  upon  the 
business  of  negotiation:"  that  is,  to  take  the  management  of 
the  business  into  his  own  hands.  He  hoped,  that  he  would  be 
able  to  devise  a  conciliatory  course,  which  would  put  an  end  to 
the  necessity  of  further  proceedings.  With  this  intention,  he 
proceeded  like  an  autocrat,  to  prescribe  the  terms  which  he  saw 
fit  to  "devise."  But  in  order  to  conceal  the  true  extent  of  the 
power,  which  he  felt  himself  at  liberty  to  exercise,  he  appended 
to  the  terms  which  he  dictatorially  offered,  a  clause,  a  kind  of 
rider,  under  the  authority  of  which,  in  case  of  his  detection,  he 
intended  to  claim  the  privilege  of  being  considered  a  mere 
mediator,  who  had  not  consulted  either  of  the  parties.  See  Nar- 
rative and  Defence,  pages  24  and  25.  The  reader  will  find  this 
part  of  doctor  Bond's  agency,  resumed  in  another  place  and 
treated  to  all  necessary  extent. 

6th.  When  doctor  Green  arrived  in  Baltimore,  he  having  been  sent 
for  to  perform  a  part  in  the  great  drama  of  "defecation,"  doctor 
Bond  had  immediate  notice  of  his  arrival,  with  a  request  to  meet 
him  at  Mr.  Warfield's.  In  the  course  of  the  evening,  doctor 
Bond  found  it  convenient  to  attend;  and  the  two  doctors  were 
together  till  a  very  late  hour.  On  the  following  morning,  we  re- 
ceived doctor  Green's  first  communication,  dated  15th  January, 
1828.  In  this  letter  he  says,  "I  have  not  mentioned  this  subject 
to  any  of  your  stationed  preachers;"  leaving  us  to  infer,  as  a 
thing  of  course,  that  he  had  mentioned  it  to  doctor  Bond  only. 

This  inference  seems  to  be  still  more  reasonable,  because  we 
had  an  opportunity  to  see  his  communication,  addressed  to  the 
president  and  members  of  the  Quarterly  Conference,  then  in 
session,  which  was  dated  16th  January,  1828,  and  reads  as  fol- 
fows,  viz:  "Whereas  certain  charges  have  been  preferred,  &c. 
*  *  *  and  whereas  I,  as  a  disinterested  member  of  said  church, 
have  volunteered  as  a  mediator,  &c.  *  *  *  #  as  there  is  a  negotia- 
tion now  pending,  between  doctor  Jennings  and  myself,  in  re- 
lation to  terms  of  reconciliation  between  said  parties,  &c.  *  *  *  * 
and  as  such  a  reconciliation  is  desirable,  and  has  been  sought  on 
your  part,  with  anxious  vigilance,  and  would  now  be  hailed  by 


12 


each  one  of  you,  &c.  *  * Doctor  Green  had  no  proper 
authority  for  this  assertion.    In  fact  it  was  not  true.    If  the  un- 
qualified mandate  of  the  prosecutors,  to  dissolve  our  Union  So- 
cieties and  discontinue  our  periodical,  was  seeking  reconciliation, 
we  must  admit  they  sought  it,  in  that  manner;  and  if  one  ap- 
plication in  this  unlawful  and  repulsive  way,  was  a  proper  ex- 
pression of  "anxious  vigilance,"  this  evidence  of  vigilance  was  af- 
forded.   Nothing  bearing,  even  the  name  of  reconciliation,  had 
been  intimated,  excepting  the  terms  dictated  by  doctor  Bond  to 
doctor  J.  S.  Reese.    These  terms  were  all  that  any  one  of  them  had 
ever  proposed;  we  were  obliged,  therefore,  to  come  to  the  con- 
clusion, that  doctor  Bond  had  made  doctor  Green  acquainted 
with  this  circumstance,  whilst  they  were  together,  the  first  night, 
at  Mr.  Warfield's.    Hence  it  appears,  that  although  doctor  Bond 
had  acted  alone  in  his  attempt  at  devising  means  of  reconcilia- 
tion, he  had  prepared  doctor  Green  to  say  in  his  letter,  which 
afterwards  was  to  be  published  in  the  Narrative  and  Defence, 
that  a  reconciliation  had  been  sought  on  the  part  of  the  church 
authorities  "with  anxious  vigilance."     This  circumstance  was 
calculated  to  tell  to  great  advantage.    The  church  had  sought 
for  a  reconciliation  with  the  reformers,  ,{with  anxious  vigilance," 
whilst  the  reformers,  on  their  part,  had  continued  to  treat  the 
church  authorities  with  "proud  contempt." 

On  the  16th  January,  1828,  when  replying  to  doctor  Green, 
we  indulged  a  hope,  that  all  was  fair.  But  his  second  commu- 
nication of  same  date,  which  was  the  day  following  his  inter- 
view with  doctor  Bond,  presented  terms,  which  let  us  know,  that 
he  was  nothing  better  than  a  sub-agent,  who  had  come  to  act  as 
an  auxiliary  to  doctor  Bond.  The  terms  which  he  submitted,  per- 
haps we  ought  to  have  said  which  he  dictated,  were  in  substance 
identical  with  those  proposed  by  doctor  Bond  to  doctor  Reese. 
See  Narrative  and  Defence,  pages  124,  125.  In  a  summary, 
they  were  as  follows,  viz: 

1st.  To  suspend  the  publication  of  the  Mutual  Rights,  until 
the  result  of  our  memorial  to  the  General  Conference  shall  be 
known.  Or  if  it  be  continued,  "it  shall  be  conducted  by  a  com- 
mittee, in  whose  appointment  the  friends  of  the  present  ad- 
ministration and  the  friends  of  Reform,  shall  have  an  equal 
part,  &/C.  &-c. 

2d.  That  the  Union  Society  shall  be  dissolved,  until  the  result 
of  your  memorial,  &,c.  &>c.  shall  be  known. 


13 


Doctor  Bond's  terms,  in  substance,  were  as  follows,  viz:  See 
Narrative  and  Defence,  page  25. 

1st.  "When  the  convention  shall  have  terminated  its  session, 
the  Union  Society  shall  be  dissolved  and  not  re-organized,  in 
the  present  or  any  other  form,  until  after  the  next  General  Con- 
ference." 

2d.  The  Mutual  Rights,  if  continued  at  all,  shall  be  strictly 
confined,  &c.  &c.  *  #  *  each  number  in  the  proof-sheets,  or  the 
materials  before  they  are  printed,  shall  be  submitted  to  three  per- 
sons, chosen  mutually  by  the  reformers  and  the  committee,  who 
have  preferred  charges,  &lc.  *  *  *  who  shall  be  authorized  to  ex- 
punge all  exceptionable  passages  therefrom." 

The  reader  is  requested  to  consider,  that  doctor  Bond's  terms 
were  prescribed  to  us,  before  the  meeting  of  our  convention. 
Those  of  doctor  Green  after  the  convention.  He  will  make  al- 
lowance for  this  difference,  and  he  cannot  fail  to  perceive  the 
near  affinity  of  the  terms  dictated  to  us,  by  these  two  doctors. 
We  are  now  told,  that  doctors  Bond  and  Green,  were  closeted 
upon  another  subject,  and  even  that  doctor  Green  so  carefully 
regarded  the  principles  of  neutrality,  in  view  of  his  delicate 
mediation,  that  he  declined  any  conversation  on  that  subject.  If 
we  rightly  understand  the  signatures  of  the  "anonymous  writers," 
who  of  late,  are  engaged  on  the  part  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  "to  speak  evil  of  ministers,"  but  who  have  nothing  to 
fear  from  the  seven  prosecutors,  seeing  they  are  on  the  side  of 
power,  doctor  Bond  passed  this  compliment,  upon  his  coadjutor, 
doctor  Green.  We  must  be  excused,  in  claiming  the  privilege 
of  placing  this  to  the  same  account,  on  which  we  have  entered 
a  similar  item,  which  occurred  about  the  time  when  our  mediator, 
who  left  his  home  "with  intention  to  volunteer,  &c."  "without 
being  solicited  to  do  so  by  any  one," — was  announced  to  the 
Quarterly  Meeting  Conference.  He  and  doctor  Bond  had  been 
together  the  greater  part  of  the  preceding  night;  and  yet,  when 
notice  was  given  of  his  arrival,  &c.  doctor  Bond  arose  in  Quar- 
terly meeting  and  inquired,  "Who  is  this  doctor  Green?"  Is  he 
the  man  who  preached,  #c.  #c? 

All  such  matters  could  be  conducted  "without  any  itinerant 
suggestion  or  influence  whatever."  And  these  "gentlemen" 
may  succeed  in  persuading  the  people  of  their  fellowship,  that 
they  practised  no  obliquities; — in  the  mean  time,  all  disinterested 
persons  will  admit,  that  we  had  too  much  cause  to  doubt  their 
8 


14 


candor,  and  consider  them  the  secret  agents  of  the  government; 
the  more  certainly  so,  when  we  now  state  openly,  as  we  might 
have  done  at  the  commencement  of  the  review,  that  doctor 
Green,  himself,  told  Rev'd.  Mr.  F.  Stier,  that  he  was  sent  for. 
Moreover,  one  of  the  doctor's  pupils,  gave  similar  information 
to  Mr.  J.  J.  Harrod's  family. 

7th.  After  the  expulsions  had  been  accomplished,  agreeably 
to  the  intention  "to  defecate  the  church,"  so  clearly  "indicated," 
by  the  address  and  vote  of  the  Pitt  street  meeting,  Doctor 
Bond  wrote  the  Narrative  and  Defence,  in  justification  of  "that 
wholesome  discipline  which  governed  our  fathers,  and  distin- 
guished them  as  a  peculiar  people."  This  fact,  is  itself,  an  irre- 
sistible proof  of  the  doctor's  agency.  Indeed,  few  agents  have 
manifested  a  warmer  interest,  or  greater  zeal.  And  judging  from 
the  high  commendations  which  have  been  bestowed  on  it,  by  the 
editors  of  the  Christian  Advocate,  &C,  at  New  York,  those  who 
were  most  deeply  interested,  considered  the  agency  to  have  been 
executed  most  admirably. 

8th.  Another  consideration,  which  had  weight  in  inducing  the 
opinion  and  belief,  that  doctor  Bond  took  an  active  part  in  plan' 
ing  and  managing  matters,  was  the  marked  caution  which  he 
evinced,  in  order  to  escape  the  imputation.  We  will  explain,  by 
referring  to  two  or  three  of  the  occurrences  of  those  times. 

1.  In  his  attempted  negociation  with  the  Union  Society, 
through  doctor  Reese,  he  "wished  it  to  be  distinctly  understood 
that  he  acted  alone  and  as  a  mediator,  and  that  he  had  not  con- 
sulted with  any  of  the  old  side  brethren  on  the  subject,  &c.  &c." 
By  the  by,  as  he  felt  himself  at  liberty  to  "devise"  and  dictate 
terms,  which  might  accomplish  all  the  purposes  of  the  prosecu- 
tion, and  so  "remove  the  necessity  of  further  proceedings,  &,c." 
there  was  no  need  of  consultation. 

2.  When  our  protest  was  advertised,  as  in  the  instance  of 
doctor  Reese,  above  stated,  so  in  this,  he  was  looking  on  with 
"anxious  vigilance;"  and  perceiving  that  the  publication  of  the 
protest  called  for  his  help,  he  gave  to  Mr.  Samuel  Harden  "the 
first  suggestion  of  the  necessity"  of  submitting  to  the  public,  a 
"plain  statement  of  the  whole  affair,"  so  soon  as  the  trials  should 
be  ended.  Perhaps  if  we  knew  all,  we  might  say,  he  dictated, 
that  such  a  publication  should  be  announced,  in  order  to  coun- 
teract "our  novel  procedure." 

Our  friends  know,  that  immediately  after  our  interview  with 
Mr.  Harden,  we  told  them,  that  a  publication  would  be  made  by 


15 


the  power  party,  with  intention  to  justify  their  proceedings.  It 
is  an  affair  of  very  small  moment,  that  Mr.  Harden  has  ventured 
to  contradict  our  assertion  that  we  learned  their  intention  as  to 
their  contemplated  plain  statement,  &,c.  from  him.  In  their  at- 
tempt to  avoid  Scylla,  they  have  run  into  Charybdis.  The  doctor 
thought  it  important  to  get  away  from  Harden's  unintentional 
disclosure;  but  in  managing  the  affair,  it  escaped  his  notice, 
that  he  was  furnishing  proof  positive  of  his  agency  in  the  case. 
He  says,  he  gave  to  Mr.  Harden,  the  first  suggestion  of  the  ne- 
cessity of  such  a  measure.  Surely  his  own  testimony  may  be 
safely  admitted. 

3.  Dr.  Bond  was  the  writer  of  the  Narrative  and  Defence, 
and  notwithstanding  he  has  said,  the  part  he  took  in  aiding  the 
prosecutors,  was  generally  known,  and  to  no  one  better  than  to 
the  writer  of  this  Review,  it  is  a  fact,  that  we  knew  nothing 
more  about  it  than  will  be  found  in  this  publication.  We  think 
it  probable,  however,  that  the  review  provoked  the  public  ac- 
knowledgment, that  he  was  the  writer.  Would  it  not  have  com- 
ported more  strictly  with  candor  and  truth,  if  he  had  affixed  his 
own  proper  signature  to  the  work?  It  would  then  have  been 
concluded  as  follows,  viz. 

THOMAS  E.  BOND, 
for  the  seven  prosecutors. 

And  every  reader  would  have  been  prepared  to  judge  how 
far,  laymen,  unassisted,  had  been  the  agents  in  the  "defecating" 
work.  Instead  of  this  plain  and  honest  procedure,  the  names 
of  the  seven  prosecutors  are  all  subscribed,  as  if  they  were  the 
authors  of  the  book. 

9th.  Dr.  Bond's  agency  is  fairly  deducible  from  the  disingenu- 
ousness  of  the  Narrative  and  Defence.  Although  an  avowed 
"plain  statement  of  the  whole  affair,"  perhaps  a  more  unfair  ex- 
parte  account  of  things,  has  not  been  published  in  the  United 
States.  This  imputation  will  be  supported  by  the  review  of  the 
extracts  and  comments  which  will  be  seen  in  the  sequel.  It  is 
not  intended,  however,  to  confine  the  charge  of  disingenuous- 
ness  to  the  extracts  and  comments.  It  is  stamped  upon  the 
face  of  the  book,  more  or  less,  upon  almost  every  page.  We 
will  select  one  example,  which  for  the  present  may  serve  as  an 
illustration  of  our  complaint  touching  this  point.  Our  pro- 
test was  based  upon  his  "appeal  to  the  Methodists,  &-c."  and  the 
address  which  he  caused  to  be  issued  from  the  Pitt  street  meet- 


16 


ing.  No  subject,  therefore,  could  have  been  more  familiar  to 
him.  That  protest  presented  a  very  important  difficulty  to  the 
prosecution,  which  he  ought  to  have  met  and  answered  fairly. 
The  subtile  evasion,  to  which  he  had  recourse  in  this  particular, 
is  the  example  of  subterfuge  to  which  we  now  invite  attention. 
See  Narrative  and  Defence,  pages  30,  31,  32,  and  33. 

The  second  part  of  our  protest,  which  was  formally  entered 
before  the  extraordinary  tribunal,  constituted  by  the  Baltimore 
station  for  the  purpose  of  securing  our  expulsion,  and  the  pub- 
lication of  which,  induced  doctor  Bond  to  give  "the  first  sug- 
gestion of  the  necessity  of  publishing  the  Narrative  and  De- 
fence," was  drawn  up  in  the  following  words,  viz:  "I  now  enter 
my  protest,  because  of  the  impossibility  of  a  fair  and  disinterest- 
ed trial, — for  that,  my  sentence  is  already  pronounced,  by  the 
men  who  are  to  sit  in  judgment.    For  confirmation  of  this,  I 
refer  to  doctor  Bond's  book,  (Appeal  to  the  Methodists,  &c.) 
pages  44,  45.    'The  history  of  this  controversy,'  says  he,  'bears 
irresistible  testimony  to  the  position,  that  a  profession  of  reli- 
gion will  not  save  us  from  the  consequences  incident  to  oppo- 
sition and  contest  among  the  professors.    Let  any  man  look 
over  the  pages  of  the  Wesleyan  Repository,  and  the  Mutual 
Rights,  and  doubt  this  position,  if  he  can.    He  will  see  the 
merciless  gladiators,  cutting  and  thrusting  without  pity  or  remorse. 
He  will  see  a  periodical  work,  *  *  *  which  the  heat  of  debate, 
and  the  mortification  of  disappointed  ambition,  has  converted 
into  a  vehicle  of  anonymous  slander  and  misrepresentation,  fyc.  <Src.' 
**********  And  I  am  warranted  in  saying,  that  the  sentence 
here  pronounced  in  doctor  Bond's  book,  is  likewise  the  sentence 
of  every  active  old-side  man  in  the  station.    Of  these  official 
men,  who  are  to  judge  of  my  case,  it  certainly  is.    For  proof, 
I  refer  to  the  pamphlet,  whose  manuscript,  written  by  doctor  Bond 
and  the  rest  of  the  committee,  had  the  sanction  and  vote  of  the 
meeting,  at  the  corner  of  Pitt  and  Front  streets;  a  meeting  of 
the  old  side  brethren,  when  and  where,  these  three  brethren  of 
the  committee,  acted  and  voted  with  them,  as  they  themselves  now 
admit.    Read  (the  address,)  on  pages  2  and  3.    'The  opinion 
of  the  conference,  (Baltimore  Annual  Conference  is  meant)  that 
the  Mutual  Rights  was  an  improper  work,  &c.  &c.  *  *  *  was 
founded  on  the  fact,  that  the  Mutual  Rights  was  a.  work  in  which 
anonymous  writers  were  permitted  to  abuse  and  defame  the  travel- 
ling preachers,  fyc.  fyc.  ******  by  misrepresenting  both  their 
actions  and  their  motives.'  Here  13  proof  positive,  that  the  Mu- 


tual  Rights,  is  already  under  sentence  of  condemnation.  And 
I  am  constrained  to  say,  this  semblance  of  a  trial,  is  intended  to 
condemn  me,  in  like  manner."  The  difficulty  which  this  protest 
presented  has  never  yet  been  met;  and  it  i3  impossible  to  recon- 
cile it  with  the  principles  of  common  justice,  much  less  with 
those  of  christian  benevolence.  In  order  to  escape  it,  the  Doc- 
tor says,  "the  protests  chiefly  rested  on  the  want  of  conformity 
in  the  appointment  and  in  the  proceedings  generally;  to  the 
practice  which  obtains  in  courts  of  criminal  jurisprudence." 
Every  reader  must  perceive  that  this  statement  is  not  true.  Our 
protest  rested  on  the  notorious  fact,  that  all  the  men  concerned, 
had  prejudged  our  case.  Having  made  the  above  misrepresenta- 
tion, he  makes  a  fine  flourish  in  view  of  it,  affecting  to  shew  how 
reformers,  "after  their  fashion,"  would  bring  the  church  into  all  the 
uncertainties  of  the  law.  "Instead  of  the  little  book  of  disci- 
pline, give  them  as  a  substitute,  massy  folios  of  common  law, 
and  statute  law,  with  commentaries  of  learned  length  and  re- 
ports of  ponderous  magnitude," — "ecclesiastical  lawyers," — 
"courts,"  judges,  clerks,  &c.  &c.  "to  keep  them  to  all  the  rules 
of  special  pleading,  and  legal  technicalities."  This  learned  dis- 
play may  have  entertained  the  friends  of  the  prosecution.  In 
view  of  our  protest,  it  is  without  meaning,  except  only,  that  it 
"indicates"  a  probability,  that  doctor  Bond  was  the  author  of  the 
charges  and  specifications.  He  proceeds  to  inform  us  that  the 
prosecuting  party  "considered  the  church  judicatories,  as  mere- 
ly moral  tribunals,  in  which  a  few  plain  pious  men  were  deemed 
capable  of  deciding,  whether  an  accused  brother  had  violated 
his  religious  or  social  obligations."  *  *  They  think  "that  men 
of  plain  common  sense,  with  the  necessary  piety  and  integrity, 
were  fully  competent  to  judge  in  such  matters,  both  of  the  law 
and  the  fact."  And  what  does  all  this  signify?  We  suppose 
this  is  the  Doctor's  argument  to  prove,  that  the  three  local 
preachers  selected  to  condemn  us,  possessed  enough  piety  and 
integrity;  or  perhaps,  that  they  possessed  all  that  was  "necessa- 
ry," to  fit  them  to  join  in  the  preparatory  meeting,  vote  for  "de- 
fecating" the  church  of  the  publishers  of  the  Mutual  Rights,  and 
then  sit  in  judgment  to  confirm  their  own  previous  decision. 
This  procedure,  according  to  the  Doctor,  is  such,  as  "men  of  plain 
common  sense"  with  the  "necessary  piety  and  integrity"  will  pur- 
sue. We  are  constrained  to  pray,  "from  such  expressions  of 
common  sense,  piety  or  integrity,  good  Lord  deliver  us!"  After 
all  these  and  other  fancies  equally  evasive,  at  length  he  affects  to 


IS 


march  right  up  to  the  difficulty.  "In  the  cases  under  considera- 
tion, the  objections  were,  first,  that  the  members  of  the  commit- 
tees, &c.  at  a  meeting  held  at  doctor  Roszel's  academy,  partici- 
pated in  the  appointment  of  a  committee  to  prosecute.  Secondly, 
that  they  had  voted  for  certain  resolutions  and  an  address,  at 
the  Pitt  street  meeting."  He  denies,  however,  that  such  commit- 
tee was  appointed;  and  says  they  were  requested  to  inquire  into 
the  causes  which  had  produced  the  existing  agitations,  &c.  &c. 
It  matters  not.  The  seven  men  were  sufficiently  "indicated"  by 
the  request,  to  feel  themselves  called  to  the  service  of  the  prose- 
cution. In  doctor  Bond's  view  of  things,  however,  there  seems 
to  have  been  a  difference. 

"The  second  objection,"  respecting  the  vote  at  Pitt  street,  he 
admits,  "is  more  specious,  and  requires  particular  consideration." 
In  view  of  this,  it  appears  that  the  Doctor  and  we  are  of  the 
same  opinion.  "It  requires  particular  consideration."  At  said 
meeting,  all  the  official  men  had  voted  it  to  be  a  fact,  that  the 
Mutual  Rights  had  published  much,  that  abused  or  spoke  evil  of 
ministers.  On  our  trial,  the  same  men  are  appointed  to  inquire, 
whether  it  is  indeed  a  fact.  Now  let  us  see  how  the  Doctor 
meets  it,  after  admitting  that  it  needs  "particular  consideration." 
"In  the  address  complained  of,"  says  he,  "no  individual  is  nam- 
ed, as  being  responsible  for  the  publication  in  the  Mutual  Rights, 
nor  is  any  opinion  given,  that  the  writers  or  publishers  of  that 
work,  ought  to  be  expelled  from  the  church." 

Can  it  be,  that  doctor  Bond  expected  his  readers  to  accept 
this  as  an  explanation?  The  prosecution  charged  us  with  "speak- 
ing evil  of  ministers" — because  we  aided,  &c.  in  "the  publica- 
tion of  the  Mutual  Rights,  which  contains  much,  &c.  #  *  that 
is  abusive,  or  speaks  evil  of  a  part  if  not  most  of  the  ministers," 
&/C.  The  address  asserts  it  to  be  a  fact,  that  the  periodical, 
the  Mutual  Rights,  was  rightly  considered  to  be  an  improper 
work,  because  in  it,  writers  were  permitted  "to  abuse  and  defame 
the  travelling  preachers;" — the  pretended  offence  for  which  the 
Doctor  and  his  aids  intended  to  expel  us,  and  for  which  they  did 
expel  more  than  thirty  of  us  as  soon  as  they  could,  and  save  ap- 
pearances. But  as  they  did  not  read  out  the  names  of  the  contem- 
plated victims,  nor  say  they  intended  to  expel  us;  as  they  only 
voted  the  necessity  of  1 'defecating  '  the  church  of  luke-warm 
members,  they  would  have  us  to  admit,  that  all  was  in  accordance 
with  the  law  of  Christ,  "as  ye  would  that  men  should  do  unto 
you,  do  ye  likewise  unto  them."    As  the  Doctor  says,  the  com- 


19 


mittee,  although  they  voted  for  the  address,  had  not  prejudged 
the  cases  of  the  accused  on  the  charges  preferred  against  them, 
we  must  succumb  and  say,  "so  let  it  be."    In  order  to  expose 
clearly,  the  sophistry  which  he  intended  to  serve  his  turn,  in  this 
case,  let  us  inquire  what  ought  to  have  been  the  proper  subject 
of  investigation  before  the  court  of  inquiry.    Had  they  prosecut- 
ed the  writers  of  the  objectionable  papers,  individually,  the  Edi- 
torial committee  were  bound  to  surrender  the  proper  name  of 
each,  or  answer  in  his  stead.    Or  if  they  had  intended  to  prose- 
cute the  committee,  either  individually  or  jointly  as  Editors, 
their  names  were  known,  having  been  publicly  announced  every 
year.    The  inquiry,  therefore  was  not  who  were  the  writers,  nor 
who  were  the  publishers.    It  was  only  necessary  to  ascertain, 
whether  the  Mutual  Rights  did  or  did  not  "contain  much  that 
is  abusive  or  speaks  evil  of  a  part,  if  not  most  of  the  ministers, 
&c.  &c."    The  prosecutors  asserted  the  affirmative,  and  it  was 
their  business  to  support  that  affirmation,  by  the  necessary  testi- 
mony.   Those  who  stood  charged  would  have  asserted  the  ne- 
gative, and  in  the  event  of  a  trial,  it  would  have  been  incumbent 
on  them  to  justify  their  papers  or  publications. 

Although  the  Doctor  endeavoured  to  escape  by  shuffling  up 
this  substitute  for  an  explanation,  he  seems  to  have  been  impell- 
ed by  a  sense  of  justice  to  return  to  the  only  correct  view  of  the 
subject,  and   concluded   by  saying,  "whether   the  decisions 
which   these  committees  have  given  in  the  cases  submitted 
to  them,  have  been  just,  will  be  left  to  the  reader  after  he  shall 
calmly  and  dispassionately  have  read  the  extracts  from  the  Mu- 
tual Rights,  upon  which  those  who  preferred  the  accusations  re- 
lied to  sustain  them."    And  if  the  reader  will  be  contented  with 
doctor  Bond's  "extracts,"  and  his  comments  upon  them,  it  is  very 
probable  that  he  will  also  be  satisfied,  that  the  decisions  of  the 
committees  were  just.    How  many  have  already  been  satisfied 
with  the  accounts  given  of  these  matters  in  the  Narrative  and 
Defence,  we  know  not.    But  all  such  are  liable  to  a  very  morti- 
fying censure;  inasmuch  as  it  will  appear  to  have  been  an  affair 
of  no  importance  with  them,  how  great  the  departure  from  prin- 
ciple and  correct  procedure,  which  marked  the  conduct  of  the 
men  who  sat  in  judgment,  and  prevented  the  accused  from  making 
a  proper  defence;  all  that  was  necessary  to  secure  their  approba- 
tion, was,  that  the  prosecutors  or  their  agent  for  them,  was  ready 
to  tell  a  plausible  ex-parte  story.  For  it  will  be  demonstrated  by 
the  review,  that  we  were  insulted  by  a  mere  mock-trial,  and  that 
the  extracts  upon  which  the  Doctor  relies  for  the  justification  of 


20 


their  proceedings,  are  garbled  fragments  only,  of  the  essays  from 
which  they  are  taken,  caricatured  by  his  comments,  and  fitted  up 
for  the  special  purpose,  of  sustaining  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  outrage  practised  upon  us,  with  intention  to  ex- 
terminate reform. 

We  might  have  said,  that  we  had  ten  reasons  and  more  for  con- 
sidering doctor  Bond  an  agent  in  the  prosecution  of  the  friends 
of  reform.  We  will  notice  one  fact  only  in  addition.  He  was 
at  the  pains  to  attend  the  General  Conference,  at  Pittsburg,  the 
distance  of  280  miles.  What  other  business  might  have  con- 
curred, to  make  his  attention  there  necessary  at  that  time,  we 
know  not.  But  we  had  information  from  our  friends,  that  his  exer- 
tions were  continued,  until  the  General  Conference  had  decreed 
the  terms  and  conditions  for  the  re-admission  into  their  fellow- 
ship of  such  of  us,  as  might  be  disposed  to  submit  to  them; — 
the  same  terms  in  effect,  which  he  had  attempted  to  impose  upon 
us  through  doctors  Reese  and  Green,  as  will  be  clearly  seen  in 
the  conclusion  of  the  review. 

Taking  all  these  circumstances  and  considerations  into  the  ac- 
count, can  it  be  thought,  that  the  strictest  law  of  charity  was  trans- 
gressed, in  admitting  the  opinion  that  Dr.  Bond  was  a  concealed 
agent  of  the  power  party,  and  the  fast  friend  of  the  government 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church;  or  in  signifying  our  appre- 
hension, that  by  means  of  the  two  first  meetings,  one  at  Mr. 
William  Brown's,  the  other  at  doctor  Roszel's  school  room,  a 
conspiracy  was  organized,  and  by  the  management  of  doctor 
Bond,  in  calling  the  third  meeting  at  Pitt  street,  and  obtaining 
an  almost  unanimous  vote,  that  conspiracy  was  extended  and 
strengthened,  insomuch,  that  the  leading  men  of  the  two  sta- 
tions of  the  city,  were  all  pledged  to  help  him  to  "defecate  the 
church,"  of  the  friends  of  Mutual  Rights? 

The  Doctor  says,  this  account  of  the  part  he  acted  in  the  drama 
of  "defecation"  is  intended  to  be  "a  personal  insult  without  pro- 
vocation." That  "gentleman"  has  thought  it  necessary  to  com- 
mence a  personal  attack  on  us,  expecting  to  divert  the  attention 
of  the  public  from  our  review,  the  effect  of  which  he  foresees 
and  fears.  We  have  no  time  for  personal  contests,  and  it  has 
been  a  source  of  regret,  that  the  introduction  of  doctors  Bond 
and  Green,  by  name,  was  necessary.  But  we  found  them 
amongst  the  most  prominent  dramatis  personam  in  the  perform- 
ance of  the  grand  display,  of  the  manner  how  the  "fathers"  ex- 
ercised a  strict  administration  of  wholesome  discipline,  and  dis- 


21 


tinguished  themselves  as  a  peculiar  people."    They  were  very 
desirous  to  make  the  public  believe,  that  the  whole  performance 
was  conducted  without  "any  itinerant  suggestion  or  influence 
whatever;"  and  we  paid  to  each  of  them,  so  much  attention  only, 
as  the  intended  exposition  required,  and  no  more.    We  were 
particularly  compelled  to  acknowledge  the  importance  of  the 
part  which  doctor  Bond  had  to  perform,  and  in  the  execution  of 
which  he  acquitted  himself  so  well,  that  we  thought  he  richly 
deserved  a  benefit.    He  says  of  it,  himself,  that  to  have  equall- 
ed our  account  of  it,  would  have  required  the  talents  of  a  Tal- 
leyrand, or  a  Metternich.  Surely  then,  we  offered  no  insult  to  his 
understanding.    We  considered  him  the  fast  friend  of  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  Methodist  E.  Church.    And  this,  it  is  presumed, 
is  now  one  of  his  chief  boastings.    And  as  he  was  pleased  to  de- 
vote himself,  after  his  own  manner,  to  the  support  of  the  prose- 
cutions, we  assure  our  readers,  that  no  part  of  his  conduct, 
pending  the  whole  of  that  transaction,  was  as  reprehensible  in 
our  estimation,  as  is  his  recent  attempt  to  conceal  his  agency. 
After  having  acknowledged,  that  he  called  the  meeting  at  Pitt 
street,  for  the  purpose  of  publishing  under  the  sanction  of  the 
male  members  of  the  two  stations,  a  defence  of  the  Baltimore 
Annual  Conference,  in  the  case  of  Rev'd  D.  B.  Dorsey.  After 
having  acknowledged  the  part  he  took  in  preparing,  reading 
and  discussing  the  address  which  denounced  the  Mutual  Rights, 
and  signified  the  necessity  of  discipline,  "to  defecate"  the  church, 
&,c.    After  admitting  that  he  made  the  extracts  from  the  Mutual 
Rights,  and  wrote  the  Narrative  and  Defence,  in  justification  of 
the  "defecation,"  so  soon  as  it  had  been  accomplished  by  the 
unanimous  vote,  which  the  call  of  the  meeting  was  intended  to 
secure,  we  are  obliged  to  think  his  further  attempt  at  conceal- 
ment, has  the  appearance  of  being  at  variance  with  christian 
candor. 

He  has  endeavoured  to  elude  the  imputation  of  his  agency,  in 
regard  to  his  having  written  the  Narrative  and  Defence,  by  al- 
ledging,  that  the  papers,  from  which  the  extracts  were  made,  had 
been  previously  "indicated,"  in  the  charges  and  specifications, 
which  had  been  prepared  for  the  prosecutions.  Those  papers 
may  have  been  previously  indicated,  and  yet  we  are  excusable, 
even  now,  in  suggesting  the  possibility,  that  he  aided  in  making 
out  that  "indication,"  with  intention  to  comment  on  those  parts 
of  them,  which  he  thought  he  could  use  to  advantage;  first,  for 
4 


22 


accomplishing  the  intended  "defecation"  of  the  church,  by  an 
unanimous  vote  of  the  Quarterly  Meeting  Conference,  "a  major- 
ity of  which  body  had  not  read  the  Mutual  Rights  at  all;"  and  in 
the  second  place,  to  satisfy  the  Methodist  people,  who  in  like 
manner  were  expected  to  see  the  extracts  only,  and  without 
"reading  the  Mutual  Rights,  to  adopt  the  conclusion  furnished 
to  their  hands  by  the  Narrative  and  Defence:  and  so  by  one 
effort,  make  all  believe,  that  the  church  was  greatly  benefitted  by 
his  "defecation."  It  is  unimportant  who  indicated  the  papers, 
and  the  merit  of  the  Review  is  not  in  the  least  diminished,  if 
we  erred  in  supposing  that  the  attention  of  the  Bishops  had  been 
called  to  them  by  the  Doctor,  some  months  before  hand,  because 
it  is  known  by  the  circumstances  of  Rev'd  D.  R.  Dorsey's  case, 
that  the  Baltimore  Annual  Conference  and  the  Bishops  who  at- 
tended that  conference,  did  turn  attention  to  the  subject,  and 
clearly  made  known  their  disposition  towards  the  Mutual  Rights. 
Or  if  the  proceedings  of  the  conference  were  not  sufficiently 
notorious  by  other  means,  doctor  Bond's  address,  which  was 
read  and  discussed  at  the  Pitt  street  meeting  and  afterwards 
printed,  fairly  disclosed  the  fact,  that  the  condemnation  of  the 
Mutual  Rights  by  the  church  in  Baltimore,  would  be  in  accord- 
ance with  the  views  and  previous  decision  of  the  Annual  Con- 
ference. 

One  of  their  writers,  doctor  Bond,  it  is  presumed,  says  "Having 
slyly  assigned  to  doctor  Bond,  the  contrivance  and  arrangement 
of  the  fearful  conspiracy  against  reformers,  Doctor  Jennings 
now  introduces  him,  as  condescending  to  manage  an  under-plot, 
by  proposing  terms  of  compromise  to  the  Union  Society,  which 
was  afterwards  to  make  a  figure  in  the  Narrative  and  Defence." 
As  doctor  Bond  has  attempted  to  shew  "great  delinquency,  in 
our  manner  of  touching  this  point,  let  us  examine  it  again  with 
more  care.  The  statement,  as  it  was  printed  in  our  review,  is 
as  follows,  viz:  "But  before  the  trials  commenced,  doctor  Bond 
took  occasion,  on  his  responsibility,  to  offer  terms  to  the  Union 
Society,  which  if  accepted,  he  ventured  to  engage  for  the  prose- 
cutions, that  they  should  be  dismissed."  And  to  make  his 
charge  of  delinquency  the  more  conspicuous,  he  exhibited  his 
imaginary  contrast,  in  two  opposite  columns.  It  was  his  inten- 
tion, to  leave  an  impression  on  the  minds  of  his  readers,  that 
unguardedly  and  in  violation  of  truth,  we  had  asserted  that 
he  gave  a  pledge,  when  he  was  careful  to  be  understood  as  act- 
ing the  part  of  a  mediator.    And  as  he  did,  in  preparing  the 


23 


Narrative  and  Defence,  so  in  this  case,  he  makes  his  charge  of 
delinquency  look  very  specious.  We  reply,  that  neither  the 
nature  of  the  engagement,  nor  the  value  of  the  "pledge,"  was 
the  burden  of  our  story.  It  was  our  leading  intention,  in 
view  of  that  part  of  the  transactions  of  the  day,  to  show  how 
important  doctor  Bond  felt  himself  to  be,  in  respect  to  the  prose- 
cutions:— that  he  acted  as  the  chief  man.  And  to  make  known 
our  reasons  for  taking  such  a  view  of  his  importance,  we  refer- 
red our  readers  to  the  Narrative  and  Defence,  pages  24  and  25. 
There  doctor  Bond,  speaking  of  himself,  says,  "he  had  not  re- 
linquished the  hope,  that  some  conciliatory  course  might  be 
devised,  by  which,  the  necessity  of  further  proceedings  before  the 
constituted  authorities  of  the  church,  might  be  removed."  '***  "and 
that  he  ventured  alone  and  without  our  knowledge  (the 
prosecutors  are  meant)  uroN  the  business  of  negotiation." 
In  accordance  with  this  statement,  made  by  the  doctor  himself, 
and  in  perfect  agreement  with  the  impression  which  it  made  on 
our  minds,  it  is  said  in  the  review,  that  "he  took  occasion,  on 
his  own  responsibility,  to  offer  terms  to  the  Union  Society."  So 
far  from  being  untrue,  is  this  comment  upon  the  doctor's  state- 
ment, that  it  is  not  as  strong  as  it  ought  to  have  been.  Instead 
of  having  said  "he  took  occasion  to  offer  terms,"  it  ought  to  have 
been  said,  he  took  occasion  to  dictate  terms.  As  to  any  thing 
that  the  brethren,  generally,  knew  antecedent  to  that  circum- 
stance, doctor  Bond  had  not  made  his  appearance.  It  is  ob- 
vious, however,  from  his  own  statement  that  he  was  on  the  alert 
waiting  for  the  time  proper  for  his  entrance,  when  by  some  device, 
he  alone,  without  the  knowledge  of  the  seven  prosecutors,  might 
render  further  proceedings  before  the  constituted  authorities  of 
the  church,  unnecessary.  And  here  it  may  be  proper  to  remark, 
that  the  terms  which  he  "devised"  and  intended,  and  hoped  to 
be  able  to  impose  upon  us,  first  through  doctor  J.  S.  Reese,  in 
the  way  of  this  "under-plot,"  and  next  in  the  way  of  a  collateral 
plot,  by  the  intervention  of  doctor  Green,  were  the  same  which 
were  again  held  out  by  Mr.  Hanson,  to  the  "defecated"  victims; 
and  finally,  by  the  General  Conference,  as  the  only  conditions  of 
our  return.  And  every  intelligent  reader,  on  examining  these 
terms,  the  "device"  of  doctor  Bond,  will  find,  that  they  are  so 
"devised"  that  had  we  acceded  to  them,  when  proposed  by  him, 
"further proceedings  before  the  constituted  authorities  of  the  church," 
would  indeed  have  been  unnecessary.  But  why  did  the  review 
present  an  "unequivocal  assertion"  that  these  terms  contained  a 


24 


"pledge,"  that  the  prosecutions  should  be  dismissed?  Let  it  be 
remembered,  that  in  our  apprehension,  doctor  Bond  was  a  chief 
agent,  though  concealed.  We  therefore,  in  reading  the  account 
which  this  agent  gives  of  himself,  find  him  saying,  that  "without 
the  knowledge  or  consent  of  the  prosecutors,  he  ventured  alone 
upon  the  business  of  negotiation"  Again  in  presenting  his  dic- 
tatorial terms,  he  says  "J  am  disposed  to  use  my  personal  influ- 
ence to  procure  a  suspension  of  proceedings  before  the  church, 
upon  the  following  conditions;"  and  he  told  doctor  J.  S.  Reese, 
it  was  his  opinion,  if  the  Union  Society  would  come  to  the  terms 
which  he  proposed,  the  prosecutions  would  be  dismissed. 
Moreover,  doctor  Bond  told  a  very  respectable  citizen,  not  a 
Methodist,  that  he  was  authorized  to  make  the  overture  of  terms 
to  the  Union  Society,  which  he  presented  to  doctor  John  S. 
Reese.  As  he  did  this,  as  he  "ventured  upon  the  business  of  ne- 
gotiation alone  and  without  the  knowledge  of  the  prosecutors ,"  and 
was  nevertheless  authorized  to  do  it,  we  ask,  who  but  those  high 
in  power,  and  yet  out  of  sight  in  the  transaction,  could  have 
given  him  the  authority?  We  know  that  Bishop  George  was 
acquainted  with  the  intended  "defecation,"  whilst  as  yet  the  pre- 
parations were  making,  and  we  cannot  forget,  that  doctor  Bond 
and  Bishop  George  attended  Bishop  Hedding,  when  the  proper 
name  of  Timothy  was  demanded. 

Contemplating  the  subject  according  to  this  view,  we  would  ask, 
wherein  consists  our  delinquency?  Let  us  examine  the  subject 
in  still  another  light.  The  object  of  the  prosecution,  according 
to  our  candid  apprehension,  was,  to  depose  and  annihilate  re- 
form. The  terms  "devised"  by  doctor  Bond,  if  they  had  been 
received,  could  not  have  failed  to  have  accomplished  this  pur- 
pose. But  if  they  were  obliged  to  rely  upon  the  intended  ''de- 
fecation" although  it  had  received  the  vote  of  the  Pitt  street 
Meeting,  yet  it  was  possible,  and  the  doctor  could  foresee  the 
possibility,  that  our  prediction  to  Mr.  S.  Harden  might  be  fulfilled; 
and  after  all  their  care  and  pains  and  "unanimity  "  in  effecting  a 
"defecation,"  Reform  might  continue  to  be  very  troublesome 
to  them;  as  it  has  been,  in  fact,  and  will  continue  to  be.  But  if 
the  doctor's  device  could  have  taken  effect,  all  would  have  been 
hushed  into  silence.  And  who  but  such  a  Talleyrand  of  an 
agent,  would  have  conceived  a  device  so  cunning?  And  if  the 
Union  Society,  had  been  silly  enough  to  have  been  captivated 
by  it,  can  the  reader  be  persuaded  to  believe,  that  he  was  not 
ready  tlto  engage  for  the  prosecution,  that  it  should  be  dismissed  for 


25 


an  advantage  so  great!  The  agent,  believe  us,  understood  the 
object  of  his  negotiation  too  well  not  to  have  secured  it,  if  it  had 
been  in  his  power.  And  besides,  all  these  considerations  to  dis- 
prove the  accusation  of  delinquency,  we  did  not  pretend  to 
quote  the  words  of  doctor  Bond,  in  the  terms  and  conditions 
which  he  devised  and  prescribed;  we  stated  only  our  view  of  their 
meaning-,  and  referred  the  reader  to  the  Narrative  and  Defence, 
pages  24  and  25,  that  he  might  judge  for  himself,  whether  our 
view  was  correct; — whether  a  negotiation,  thus  undertaken,  by 
such  an  agent,  did  not  imply  engagement  on  his  part,  for  the  ful- 
filment of  the  terms  dictated  by  himself. 

The  doctor  has  accused  us,  with  having  commenced  a  per- 
sonal attack  upon  him,  without  provocation.  The  reader  will 
find,  we  have  in  no  instance  departed  from  the  subject  of  our 
controversy; — in  no  particular,  indulged  in  personal  remarks,  ex- 
cept only  when  he  is  personally  identified  with  the  question  at 
issue.  And  as  we  hold  him  implicated,  as  one  of  the  chiefs  in 
the  prosecution,  as  he  was,  in  fact,  the  writer  of  the  Narrative 
and  Defence,  it  is  useless  for  him  to  say  we  commenced  the  at- 
tack upon  him.  In  a  paragraph  of  that  work,  on  page  66,  he 
says,  "doctor  Jennings  *  *  *  *  ought  to  have  reflected,  that  as 
one  of  the  editorial  committee  of  the  Mutual  Rights,  he  had 
assailed  the  spotless  reputation  of  men,  who  labored  in  the  min- 
istry *  *  *  perhaps  before  he  was  born.  *  *  *  If  there  were  any 
just  grounds  for  the  accusations,  we  should  be  grieved.  *  #  *  But 
when  these  accusations  are  totally  destitute  of  truth,  and  only 
got  up  to  subserve  a  party  purpose — we  cannot  and  dare  not  be 
silent.  *  *  *  That  the  allegations  were  not  believed  even  by 
those  who  made  them,  is  sufficiently  obvious." 

If  this  paragraph,  which  is  one  only  out  of  many  similar  instances 
of  attack,  contained  in  the  Narrative  and  Defence,  was  not  a  per- 
sonal attack  on  us,  because  we  were  a  part  of  the  editorial  com- 
mittee; then,  nothing  said  of  doctor  Bond  in  the  Exposition  or 
Review,  is  personal  in  respect  to  him,  since  he  bore  so  important 
a  part  in  the  prosecution.  With  this  concern  we  found  him  as- 
sociated, and  therefore  have  paid  our  respects  to  him; — and  that 
because  it  was  not  possible  otherwise,  to  do  justice  to  the  sub- 
ject. Apart  from  the  transactions  by  which  we  were  expelled 
from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  we  have  no  intention  of 
troubling  him  or  any  of  his  party. 


AN  EXPOSITION 

OF  THE 


PART  FIRST. 

AN  EXPOSITION  OF  THE  LATE  CONTROVERSY,  &C.  PROCEEDINGS  BY 
WHICH  REFORMERS  WERE  EXPELLED,  &-C. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Presents  a  brief  account  of  the  true  cause  of  the  expulsion  of  Reform- 
ers, by  the  rulers  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  Baltimore, 

The  readers  of  the  Methodist  Magazine  and  Quarterly  Review, 
new  series,  No.  1.  having  no  other  information  than  can  be  collected 
from  that  review,  the  "Christian  Advocate  and  Journal,"  &,c.  of 
course,  nine-tenths  of  the  Methodist  people  will  be  induced  to  be  - 
lieve, that  the  Reformers  of  this  city,  of  Cincinnati,  of  Pittsburg, 
Lynchburgh,  &c.  &,c.  in  their  late  efforts  to  obtain  the  right  of  re- 
presentation in  the  legislative  department  of  the  church,  contend- 
ed for  a  very  different  purpose.— That  their  main  object  was,  to 
secure  to  themselves,  what  Mr.  Emory  is  pleased  to  call,  "the  sweet 
liberty  of  inveighing  and  endeavouring  to  sow  dissentions,  with- 
out restraint;"  of  comparing  Methodist  preachers  with  the  ancient 
Druids,  the  despots  of  Babylon,  Egypt,  and  Tartary,  &,c. — That 
for  their  unchristian  conduct  in  asserting  this  kind  of  liberty,  they 
were  expelled.  That  when  they  were  called  on  by  the  church,  to  ac- 
count for  such  unwarrantable  conduct,  they  held  the  church  au- 
thorities in  "stubborn,"  and  "proud  contempt;" — refusing  to  obey 
citations  to  appear  before  inferior  tribunals,  or  despising  the  right 
of  appeal  to  the  higher.  That,  therefore,  their  cases  were  not  en- 
titled to  the  consideration  of  the  Annual  or  General  Conferences, 
although  the  latter  condescended  to  propose  terms  of  reconcila- 
tion  and  peace.  That  on  the  whole,  they  have  no  right  to  com- 
plain.— And  that  the  Presbyterians,  &c.  by  permitting  reform 
preachers  to  occupy  their  pulpits,  have  refused  to  acknowledge  the 


28 


regularity  of  the  proceedings,  by  which  they  were  suspended  and 
expelled;  when  at  the  same  time,  no  proof  of  the  contrary  had 
appeared,  but  the  complaints  of  such  disciplined  and  deposed 
members. 

Every  impartial  reader  of  the  Mutual  Rights  knows  this,  to  be  a 
gross  misrepresentation  of  the  whole  affair.  And  considering  the 
extensive  circulation  and  influence  of  the  Magazine  and  Quarter- 
ly Review,  it  seems  to  be  necessary  to  meet  the  unmerited  asper- 
sion, with  an  exposition  of  the  whole  transaction.  This  is  the 
more  necessary,  because  there  are  thousands  of  our  friends  who 
have  not  seen  the  fourth  volume  of  Mutual  Rights,  which  contains 
the  principal  documents.  There  are  other  reasons,  which  will  be 
obvious  in  the  sequel.  As  it  respects  us,  the  call  for  such  a  devel- 
opment as  we  are  able  to  give,  seems  imperious,  because 

 quseque  ipse  miserrima  vidi, 

Et  quorum  pars  magna  fui.-  

It  has  been  the  steady  purpose  of  Reformers,  from  the  com- 
mencement of  their  labours,  to  inculcate  such  views  of  church  pol- 
ity as  are  consistent  with  Christian  liberty.  They  have  insisted  on 
the  rightful  claims  of  the  people  to  self-government.  And  they 
have  been  particularly  desirous  to  remove  out  of  the  way  of  the 
ministers  of  the  gospel,  all  temptation  to  assume  unwarranted  au- 
thority, or  a  proud  elevation  over  their  brethren.  So  long  as  they 
could  have  entertained  a  hope  of  effecting  any  meliorating  change 
in  the  government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  they  would 
have  been  willing,  that  it  should  have  been  brought  about  in  a  gra- 
dual manner,  and  would  have  been  satisfied  with  the  most  moderate 
concessions,  that  reasonably  could  have  been  accepted.  They 
were  particularly  solicitous,  that  the  General  Conference  might 
take  the  lead,  in  a  work  so  important,  and  secure  to  themselves 
the  high  claims  to  just  respect,  which  such  a  dignified  course  of 
conduct  was  calculated  to  procure.  With  such  views  and  feelings 
they  sent  up  memorials  to  the  General  Conference  of  1824.  The 
point  which  they  urged  more  particularly,  was  the  right  of  the  peo- 
ple to  a  representation  in  the  legislative  department  of  the  church. 
The  bishops  and  Conference  replied  by  a  circular,  saying,  that  if 
any  departure  from  the  institution  as  they  had  received  it  from 
their  fathers,  were  intended,  they  must  be  pardoned,  "if  they  knew 
no  such  right,  if  they  comprehended  no  such  privilege."  This  was 
a  declaration  of  their  unqualified  determination  to  retain  their 
power,  undiminished.  The  only  hope  of  Reformers  for  accom- 
plishing any  thing  from  that  time,  rested  upon  their  success  in 
gaining  the  attention  of  the  people. 

A  periodical,  entitled  the  Wesleyan  Repository,  had  been  issued 
in  monthly  numbers,  for  three  years  preceding  the  Conference,  the 
principal  writers  for  which  had  taken  much  pains,  to  prove  to  the 
travelling  preachers,  that  the  true  interest  of  the  church  required 
the  concession  of  a  lay  delegation.  The  work,  however,  was 
greatly  opposed  by  those,  whose  best  interests  it  was  intended  to 
subserve.    It  was,  therefore,  thought  advisable,  that  it  should  give 


29 


place  to  the  Mutual  Rights;  and  with  intention  to  counteract  a 
similar  opposition  to  this  periodical,  and  secure  the  greater  unani- 
mity amongst  the  Reformers  generally,  Union  Societies  were  insti- 
tuted, in  various  places,  and  recommended  to  the  friends  of  reform 
generally.  Aided  by  these  necessary  arrangements,  the  cause  soon 
assumed  a  more  systematic  form,  and  produced  a  more  extensive 
and  obvious  effect.  After  a  perseverance  of  about  three  years, 
all  who  understood  the  subject,  were  well  convinced,  that  the  same 
measures  continued,  would  extend  the  work  throughout  the  Unit- 
ed States.  All  were  satisfied  by  the  evidence  daily  afforded,  that 
a  sufficient  circulation  of  the  Mutual  Rights,  sustained  by  a  cor- 
responding organization  of  Union  Societies,  would  soon  produce 
an  impulse  in  favour  of  correct  principles,  which  would  be  irresis- 
tible. For  the  same  reason,  the  travelling  preachers  and  the  friends 
of  power,  considered  it  necessary  to  bring  about  the  destruction  of 
measures,  which  they  were  obliged  to  see,  were  becoming  every 
day  more  formidable.  But  as  the  publication  had  been  permitted 
to  go  on  without  interruption  for  so  many  years,  and  as  it  was  con- 
fidently believed  that  the  people  of  these  free  states,  would  not  sus- 
tain an  open  attack  upon  the  liberty  of  speech  and  the  press,  Re- 
formers generally  supposed  that  the  intimations  given  of  an  inten- 
tion to  charge  them  with  a  breach  of  discipline,  with  "inveighing" 
and  "speaking  evil  of  ministers,"  were  without  foundation.  In 
this,  however,  they  were  greatly  mistaken.  The  wise  ones  were 
maturing  their  plan  of  operations,  and  at  length,  they  satisfied  them- 
selves, that  extracts  might  be  made  from  the  Mutual  Rights,  which, 
with  their  intended  comments,  would  be  considered  so  offen- 
sive, as  to  ensure  the  condemnation  of  the  periodical,  with  the 
Methodist  community,  and  justify  the  expulsion  of  its  editors  and 
patrons.  They  concluded  too,  judging  from  other  facts,  when  in- 
dividuals had  been  subjected  to  church  censure,  that  the  characters 
and  influence  of  their  intended  victims,  would  be  so  entirely  de- 
stroyed, that  their  expulsion  would  rid  the  church  of  further  trou- 
ble on  the  score  of  reform. 

In  order  to  bring  about  the  official  death  of  the  local  preachers, 
with  the  least  observation,  and  prepare  the  people  to  give  them  up, 
most  quietly,  the  preachers  in  charge  of  the  Baltimore  city  stations, 
excluded  them  from  their  pulpits  as  unworthy  of  public  confidence; 
and  justified  themselves  to  inquiring  friends,  by  representing  them 
as  bitter  enemies  of  Methodism,  and  dwelling  with  great  emphasis 
on  their  late  interference  in  the  case  of  the  Rev.  D.  B.  Dorsey, 
who  had  been  censured  by  the  Baltimore  Annual  Conference,  and 
left  without  an  appointment  for  one  year.  For  the  dread  offence 
of  having  recommended  the  Mutual  Rights,  and  for  having  dared 
to  assert  his  rights  in  the  presence  of  the  Conference,  he  was  sub- 
jected to  these  penalties.  The  editorial  committee,  with  intention 
to  prevent  such  tyrannical  proceedings,  on  any  subsequent  occa- 
sion, had  published  an  account  of  them.  This  was  particularly 
offensive  to  the  travelling  preachers,  and  perhaps  served  to  hasten 
the  contemplated  expulsion  of  reform  out  of  their  borders. 


30 


CHAPTER  II. 

Statement  of  preparatory  measures,  and  remarks  upon  them.  The 
Pitt  Street  Meeting,  fyc. 

When  the  leaders  in  this  drama,  were  in  readiness,  they  collect- 
ed together  in  Dr.  Roszel's  school-room,*  a  number  of  those  sup- 
posed to  be  favourable  to  their  views,  and  selected  seven  of  their 
most  distinguished  members,  to  act  as  prosecutors,  who  were  to 
attend  to  the  preparation  of  the  intended  charges  and  specifica- 
tions, and  proceed  to  our  expulsion.  And  that  our  exclusion,  and 
not  our  trial  with  intention  to  do  us  justice,  was  intended,  will 
fully  appear  in  the  sequel.  Before  they  began  to  cite  us,  it  was 
determined  to  call  a  general  meeting  of  the  party,  together  with 
as  many  of  the  prosecutors  as  were  then  in  the  city,  at  the  old 
Baptist  church,  at  the  corner  of  Front  and  Pitt  streets,  where  they 
united  in  a  common  vote  "that  the  opinion  of  the  Conference,  that 
the  Mutual  Rights  was  an  improper  work,  was  not  founded  on  its 
being  a  work  on  church  government,  &c.  but  it  was  founded  on  the 
fact,  that  the  Mutual  Rights  was  a  work,  in  which  anonymous 
writers  were  permitted  to  abuse  and  defame  the  travelling  preachers; 
to  deprive  them,  if  possible,  of  the  confidence  and  support  of  the 
people  of  their  charge,  by  holding  them  up  to  public  odium,  and 
by  misrepresenting  both  their  actions  and  their  motives." 

By  this  public  vote,  all  the  active  members  came  to  a  common 
understanding,  that  the  Mutual  Rights  had  properly  come  under 
the  condemnation  of  the  Annual  Conference,  and  that  this  sen- 
tence had  the  approbation  and  sanction  of  the  whole  party.  In 
this  unanimous  sentence,  the  seven  prosecutors,  the  three  local 
preachers  who  afterwards  sat  in  judgment  on  the  cases  of  the 
ten  local  preachers,  as  also,  the  committee,  who  in  the  like  man- 
ner sat  in  judgment  on  the  twenty-two  members  who  have  been 
expelled,  were  all  present  and  voted,  and  of  course  virtually 
pledged  themselves  to  stand  by  the  prosecution.  I  may  add  here, 
that  the  paper  which  contained  the  above  opinion  of  the  Annual 
Conference,  gave  notice  of  the  contemplated  purpose  to  "defe- 
cate" the  church. 

After  having  made  such  ample  preparation,  every  body  must 
perceive,  that  nothing  more  remained  to  be  done,  but  to  get  up 
such  charges  as  should  accord  with  the  preparations;  then  take  us 
one  by  one,  identify  us  with  the  Mutual  Rights,  and  the  whole 
business  of  our  condemnation  was  settled.  The  formality  of 
charges  and  specifications,  appears  to  have  been  necessary,  merely 
to  save  appearances,  make  the  act  officially  an  act  of  the  church, 
and  lead  the  community  into  a  belief,  that  the  Reformers  had  been 
accused  righteously,  tried  in  due  form,  fairly  condemned  and  justly 
punished. 

*They  had  held  a  previous  private  council,  at  the  house  of  Mr.  William 
Brown,  deceased. 


31 


Knowing  as  we  did,  that  these  arrangements  were  previously  made, 
when  summoned  to  appear  and  answer,  it  was  as  clear  to  our  minds 
as  a  sunbeam,  that  we  were  called  upon,  not  to  be  tried,  but  to  be 
excommunicated.  And  as  the  excommunication  of  a  few  individ- 
uals, could  not  answer  the  purpose  which  the  party  had  in  view, 
we  were  obliged  to  see  with  equal  clearness,  if  they  were  permit- 
ted to  succeed,  in  this  way,  in  Baltimore,  that  similar  measures 
would  be  taken  against  Reformers,  upon  a  scale  sufficiently  ex- 
tended, to  effect  their  excommunication  throughout  the  whole  ex- 
tent of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

We  could  not  consent  to  be  tried  before  a  tribunal,  constituted 
for  this  purpose.  To  have  done  so,  and  by  our  own  act  to  have 
given  sanction  to  their  proceedings,  would  have  been  to  sacrifice 
principles,  which  every  American  and  every  Christian  is  bound  to 
hold  more  dear  than  life.  We  therefore  entered  our  protest,  un- 
der conviction,  that  such  a  court  could  not  have  admissible  juris- 
diction in  the  case.  The  very  circumstance,  that  it  had  become 
necessasy  to  make  the  intended  prosecution  an  affair  of  the  party, 
in  order  to  carry  it  on,  to  all  candid  and  well  informed  minds,  must 
be  conclusive  proof  that  a  church  court  had  nothing  to  do  with 
the  subject.  The  dispute  in  question,  involved  interests  of  great 
public  importance,  which  the  decision  of  such  a  court  could  not 
finally  dispose  of  or  settle,  and  upon  which  its  sentence  could  have 
no  adequate  effect.  And  we  did  hope  that  the  higher  authorities 
of  the  church  would  sustain  our  protests,  and  wipe  off  the  stain 
which  this  unprincipled  transaction  was  tending  to  fix  upon  it. 
This  we  had  good  reason  to  expect,  in  as  much  as  by  the  circular 
which  issued  from  the  General  Conference  of  1824,  the  bishops 
and  Conference  assured  us,  they  "rejoice,  that  the  institutions 
of  our  happy  country  are  admirably  calculated  to  secure  the 
best  ends  of  civil  government,"  adding,  "with  your  rights  as 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  the  church  disclaims  all  inter- 
ference." The  "liberty  of  speech  and  of  the  press;"  the  liber- 
ty to  assert  our  ecclesiastical  rights  and  privileges;  the  right 
to  investigate  and  communicate  the  results  of  our  investigations 
into  the  administration,  and  especially  into  the  mal-administra- 
tion  of  men  in  office  and  power; — these  are  some  of  the  most  im- 
portant privileges,  which  are  guarranteed  to  us  by  the  Constitution 
and  Bill  of  Rights  of  the  United  States  and  of  the  state  of  Mary- 
land, and  of  course  are  rights,  with  which  "the  church  disclaims 
all  interference."  And  yet  this  prosecution  was  an  attack,  which  by 
men  with  right  views  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
will  be  considered  an  act  of  treason  against  our  civil  and  religious 
liberties,  at  the  same  time  that  it  trampled  under  foot  and  dishonor- 
ed this  sacred  pledge,  given  us  by  the  bishops  and  General  Con- 
ference. 

It  is  said  there  was  no  intention  to  infringe  upon  our  rights  in 
any  of  these  respects,  but  to  call  us  to  account  for  a  licentious 
abuse  of  those  rights.  This  is  the  aspect  which  our  prosecutors 
are  desirous  their  proceedings  should  wear.  This,  Mr.  Emory 
would  present  as  the  "gist"  of  the  offence. 


32 


CHAPTER  III. 

A  statement  of  the  case,  as  it  ought  to  have  been  viewed  by  the  committee. 

We  were  accused  as  editors,  &c.  of  a  periodical.  The  princi- 
pal design  of  the  periodical  was  to  shew,  that  in  the  organization  and 
administration  of  the  government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  there  are  infractions  made  upon  the  natural  and  Christian 
rights  of  whole  classes  of  her  members.  Under  the  protection  of 
the  Bill  of  Rights,  and  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  the 
State  of  Maryland,  we  asserted  our  right  to  take  on  us  this  office, 
and  under  the  grand  charter,  which  comprises  and  confirms  the 
Christian  rights  of  every  member  of  the  church  of  Christ,  the 
Holy  Word  of  God,  we  claimed  the  right,  as  members  and  as 
ministers  of  the  church,  to  examine  and  "try  all  things;" — the 
government,  its  administrations,  its  practices;  and  to  communicate 
through  a  periodical,  the  result  of  our  investigations.  It  was  our 
right  and  privilege  as  editors,  to  judge  respecting  the  merits  of  any 
paper  offered  for  insertion,  and  particularly  to  judge,  whether  it  was 
intended  "to  speak  evil  of  ministers."  It  is  true  we  were  liable 
to  err,  and  if  we  erred,  in  the  judgment  of  any  brother,  he  had  a 
right  as  well  founded  as  our  own,  to  make  a  becoming  representa- 
tion of  our  mistake;  which  done,  there  existed  an  obligation  on 
our  part,  to  make  such  correction  as  might  have  been  reasonably 
and  properly  required;  and  this  we  always  were  ready  to  do. 

Had  the  brethren  waited  on  us.  with  a  view  to  any  such  correc- 
tion, they  would  have  been  received  in  love,  and  as  far  as  their  de- 
mands were  reasonable  and  proper,  they  would  have  been  granted. 
But  they  never  took  any  step  of  this  kind. 

The  meetings  preparatory  to  the  accomplishment  of  our  excom- 
munication, preceded  any  call  upon  us,  in  relation  to  the  Mutual 
Rights.  And  when  the  prosecuting  committee  were  ready  to 
make  a  specious  attempt  to  justify  themselves  in  their  intended 
course,  they  waited  on  us,  to  let  us  know,  that  we  must  desist  from 
the  publication  of  the  Mutual  Rights,  and  abandon  the  Union  Society, 
or  they  would  proceed  against  us. 

From  this  conduct,  it  is  obvious,  that  a  correction  of  the  manner 
of  our  publications,  had  no  place  in  their  thoughts. 

The  attack  was  made  upon  reform,  and  the  design  was  to  secure 
a  continuance  of  the  absolute  power  of  the  travelling  preachers, 
by  expelling  out  of  the  church,  the  friends  of  reform.  The  ques- 
tion at  issue  was  an  affair  of  opinion,  and  could  not  be  settled 
righteously  in  this  way.  The  court  of  inquiry  in  the  first  instance, 
was  tainted  with  partiality  and  injustice.  The  judge,  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Hanson,  had  written  his  opinion  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Jacobs,  of 
Alexandria — "I  am  disposed,"  said  he,  "to  view  the  greater  part 
of  them,  [the  Reformers,]  as  holding  a  relation  to  the  church,  to 
which  in  justice  and  propriety,  nay  even  in  charity  itself,  they  are 
no  longer  entitled." 


33 


CHAPTER  IV. 
Presents  the  absurd  and  truly  ridiculous  character  of  the  prosecution. 

The  judge,  the  prosecutors,  and  the  committee,  were  all  of  one 
party,  and  had  all  prejudged  our  case.  If  a  majority  of  Reform- 
ers had  been  permitted  to  sit  in  judgment,  they  would  certainly 
have  decided  in  our  favour.  The  whole  court  were  anti-reformers, 
and  they  decided  against  us.  And  now  we  ask,  what  information 
has  been  gained  by  the  inquiry  and  the  decision  of  this  court? 
That  anti-reformers  are  opposed  to  our  views,  and  had  rather  turn 
Reformers  out  of  the  church,  than  permit  investigation  to  go  on 
in  it.  And  does  this  settle  the  question?  Reformers  have  been  la- 
bouring to  prove  that  they  have  a  just  claim  to  a  representation  in 
the  legislative  department  of  the  church.  Anti-reformers  sat  in 
judgment  on  their  claim,  and  expelled  the  claimants  from  their 
communion  for  asking  it  and  daring  to  produce  evidences  in  proof 
of  the  importance  of  its  being  granted.  And  all  the  while,  that 
these  formalities  and  severities  of  a  church  court  were  going  on, 
it  was  still  a  question  of  opinion.  And  what  is  worse,  it  was 
making  the  opinion  of  the  three  local  preachers,  who  sat  as  our 
committee,  to  be  the  measure  of  the  judgment  of  the  whole  Me- 
thodist Church  on  the  great  question  at  issue.*  It  was  even  worse 
than  this.  It  was  declaring  to  the  world,  that  great  polemical 
questions  are  settled  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  by  ex- 
pelling those  who  dare  to  think  differently  from  the  travelling 
preachers,  and  that  the  travelling  preachers  can  enlist  their  mem- 
bers to  sustain  them  in  it,  even  to  the  withholding  from  their  peo- 
ple, the  liberty  of  speech  and  of  the  press. 

How  obvious  is  it,  that  a  party  difference  cannot  be  settled 
righteously  in  this  way!  When  any  question  which  is  agitated  con- 
cerns none,  but  those  who  are  permitted  to  act  in  the  case,  it  might 
be  put  to  the  vote  of  a  majority.  For  example,  if  no  one  out  of 
the  station  of  Baltimore,  had  been  interested,  a  meeting  of  all  con- 
cerned, might  have  effected  a  temporary  arrangement,  by  putting 
the  question  to  vote  in  a  friendly  manner.  But  all  communities 
are  forever  changing,  both  in  their  constituent  materials,  and  in 
the  opinions  of  their  members.  Of  course  the  very  nature  of  hu- 
man society,  implies  the  necessity  of  freedom  of  inquiry  and  of 
opinion; — and  no  arrangement,  short  of  a  frequently  elected  dele- 
gation, for  the  purpose  of  regulating  conventional  principles  and 
rules  of  conduct,  can  maintain  a  form  of  church  or  state  govern- 
ment, which  shall  do  equal  justice  to  the  opinions  of  an  extensive 
fellowship.    Hovv  very  far  therefore,  would  even  the  vote  of  a  ma- 

*These  three  preachers,  were  John  W.  Harris,  Samuel  Williams  and  Tho- 
mas Basford.  We  thought  them  well  meaning-  men;  but  as  to  their  qualifica- 
tions for  sitting  in  judgment  on  a  case  of  so  much  moment,  we  must  say,  we 
pitied  their  temerity.  All  who  know  them,  will  testify,  that  they  can  barely 
sustain  themselves  as  local  preachers  in  the  Methodist' Episcopal  Church,  of 
the  most  ordinary  attainments. 


34 


jority  of  the  Baltimore  station,  have  fallen  short  of  doing  justice  to 
the  opinions  of  our  vastly  extended  community!  And  ought  not 
the  sense  of  justice  of  the  people  or  preachers  to  have  led  them 
to  admit,  that  the  friends  of  reform  had  the  right  to  inquire  and 
think,  as  well  as  they? 


CHAPTER  V. 

The  prosecution  violated  all  the  fundamental  rules  by  which  judicial 
proceedings  should  be  regulated. 

It  is  settled  in  this  country  and  in  Great  Britain,  that  in  all  judi- 
cial proceedings,  the  tribunal  which  determines  both  the  law  and 
the  fact,  should  be  impartial.  According  to  judge  Blackstone, 
"should  be  like  Caesar's  wife,  not  only  pure,  but  unsuspected." 
Hence  the  establishment  of  certain  rules  of  the  courts,  to  guard 
against  the  want  of  integrity; — against  the  prejudices  and  partiali- 
ties to  which  all  human  tribunals  are  liable. 

Upon  any  trial  for  the  least  offence,  which  can  be  charged  by 
the  most  enlightened  and  impartial  grand  jury,  not  an  individual  of 
those  who  served  on  such  grand  jury,  can  be  legally  permitted  to 
act  and  determine  as  one  of  a  traverse  jury,  upon  the  guilt  of  the 
persons  so  charged.  Not  one  would  be  permitted  in  this  country, 
even  if  the  whole  grand  jury  had  been  composed  of  bishops,  pre- 
siding elders,  itinerant  or  local  preachers,  trustees  or  stewards. 
Yet  in  this  case,  after  taking  the  vote  as  it  was  done,  at  the  meet- 
ings at  Roszel's  school-room,  and  at  the  corner  of  Pitt  street, 
where  all  seived  as  grand  jury-men,  they  were  under  the  necessity 
of  dropping  the  intended  prosecutions,  or  of  exhibiting  the  novel 
proceeding,  of  making  up  all  their  committees,  out  of  the  men 
who  had  previously  decided  and  published  their  decision  on  the 
case  in  question;  which  every  reflecting  man  in  the  nation,  will 
consider  out  of  character.  For  nothing  can  be  more  rational,  than 
to  believe  and  expect,  that  those  who  voluntarily  preferred  charges, 
would  declare  the  charges  true,  which  they  themselves  had  with 
great  assiduity  prepared. 

Again,  it  is  an  important  rule  in  criminal  proceedings,  that  the 
law  in  all  penal  cases,  shall  be  construed  strictly  and  rigidly, 
against  the  government  and  in  favour  of  the  accused.  Considering 
the  circumstances  and  the  materials,  in  view  of  the  men  who  con- 
stituted the  court  of  inquiry,  what  prospect  had  the  accused,  of 
availing  themselves  of  the  benefit  of  this  rule?  In  fact,  every 
question  was  decided  against  them. 

Another  indispensable  rule,  is,  that  the  character  of  the  offence, 
as  charged,  shall  be  made  out  so  specifically,  as  to  enable  the  ac- 
cused, not  only  fully  to  comprehend  its  nature,  but  clearly  to  per- 
ceive, what  evidence  may  be  necessary  for  him,  on  trial;  that  he 
may  not  be  liable,  either  to  mistake,  or  to  be  entrapped  in  prepar- 
ing for  and  making  his  defence.    In  this  case,  we  had  the  absur- 


35 


dity  of  a  vague  reference  to  all  that  is  published  in  three  large 
octavo  volumes,  and  part  of  a  fourth,  in  extenso,  and  more  partic- 
ularly to  fifteen  long  essays,  containing  more  than  one  hundred  and 
fifty  pages,  with  not  one  sentence  definitely  specified.  Nay  more, 
when  some  of  the  accused  requested  that  the  offensive  papers 
might  be  read,  in  order  that  the  supposed  defamatory  words  might 
be  designated,  it  was  peremptorily  refused  by  the  court.* 

This  is  a  faithful  description  of  the  view  which  we  we  recompell- 
ed  to  take,  of  the  official  members  of  the  city  station.  It  was  a 
time  of  excitement;  and  the  colouring  may  be  sufficiently  strong, 
but  it  is  honest,  and  as  free  from  prejudice,  as  possible  in  existing 
circumstances.  Here,  we  leave  them  for  a  little,  until  we  shall  have 
taken  a  brief  notice  of  the  District  Conference,  the  tribunal  before 
which,  we  were  willing  and  prepared  to  appear  upon  the  merits  of 
the  case. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

The  District  Conference  dissolved,  in  order  to  place  the  local  preach- 
ers  under  the  authority  of  the  Quarterly  Meeting  Conference,  the 
members  of  which  had  been  pledged  by  the  vote  at  Pitt  street,  to 
stand  by  the  prosecutions* 

It  was  known  to  us,  at  least  two  months  before  hand,  that  it  was 
a  part  of  the  plan  of  the  dominant  party,  to  dissolve  the  District 
Conference,  and  compel  the  suspended  local  preachers,  to  appear, 
for  trial,  before  the  Quarterly  Conference; — before  the  same  men, 
who  had  with  one  consent,  prejudged  our  case  and  published  their 
judgment,  in  the  famous  pamphlet  which  issued  from  their  Pitt  and 
Front  street  meeting.  We  also  knew,  that  if  a  majority  of  votes  in 
favour  of  a  dissolution  of  the  conference,  could  not  otherwise  be  ob- 
tained, the  coloured  preachers  would  be  called  on  to  vote.  The 
editor  of  the  Review  says,  it  has  been  affirmed  that  they  voted,  and 
it  has  been  denied.  Had  he  turned  to  the  Narrative  and  Defence, 
page  112,  he  would  have  read  the  following  statement,  made  by  the 
prosecuting  agents  of  the  church.  "He  [the  President,  Rev.  Joseph 
Frye,]  then  requested  that  all  who  were  in  favour  of  the  motion 
would  rise  up,  and  stand  till  they  were  counted;  nineteen  white 
members  and  ten  coloured,  arose  in  favour  of  the  motion."  It  gave 
us  but  little  concern,  that  the  coloured  men  also  had  been  enlisted 
against  us.  But,  the  transaction  went  far  to  satisfy  us  that  we  had 
taken  a  true  view  of  the  object  of  men  in  power,  and  that  we  were 
correct  in  our  former  declaration,  that  the  prosecution  was  put  in 

*  These  rules  or  principles,  by  which  the  jurisprudence  of  our  country  is 
regulated,  are  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  dictates  of  common  sense.  They 
are  introduced  in  this  place,  to  show  how  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
authorities  regard  principle,  when  it  is  at  variance  with  the  designs  of  men 
in  power. 


36 


motion  by  "persons  at  a  distance,  high  in  authority."*  Some  ob- 
jection was  made,  to  the  propriety  of  calling  on  the  coloured 
preachers  to  vote  in  the  case;  when  one  of  them  arose  and  declar- 
ed in  justification  of  his  rights,  that  he  and  others  had  waited  on 
the  Bishop,  when  he  was  last  in  the  city,  and  the  "Bishop  told  us, 
said  he,  to  go  to  Conference  and  insist  on  our  rights;  for  we  had  as 
good  a  right  to  vote,  as  any  man  in  the  Conference;  and  if  he  were 
in  the  chair,  he  would  call  to  order  and  put  down  any  one  who 
would  oppose  our  right  to  vote."  The  transaction  afforded  addi- 
tional proof,  of  a  concerted  design,  in  which  the  bishops,  presiding 
elder,  the  preacher  in  charge  ot  W est  Baltimore  station,  and  the 
whole  body  of  official  men,  were  confidently  expected  to  sustain 
their  proceedings. 

We  have  good  cause  to  believe  that  the  prosecutors,  or  at  least, 
the  agent,  knew  they  would  be  sustained  by  the  General  Confer- 
ence; and,  as  shall  be  shewn  more  distinctly  by  and  by;  that 
they  relied  upon  the  Narrative  and  Defence,  which  they  intended 
to  publish. 

We  considered  it  to  be  inconsistent  with  our  responsibilities  to  the 
friends  of  reform,  in  view  of  the  great  question  at  issue,  to  ac- 
knowledge the  legality  of  the  prosecution  before  the  committee,  or 
court  of  inquiry,  and  therefore  we  had  entered  our  protests.  Nor  could 
we  see  any  good  cause  for  changing  our  course.  We  therefore 
determined  not  to  appear  before  the  Quarterly  Conference.  The 
brethren  in  like  circumstances  were  of  the  same  opinion.  All 
concluded  it  would  be  a  waste  of  time,  and  an  improper  avidity  of 
humiliation,  to  wait  upon  the  Conferenee  to  hear  a  formal  condem- 

•  This  was  our  view  of  the  affair  at  the  time  when  it  occurred  and  when 
we  commenced  our  Review.  "We  have  since  learned,  that  Franc'13  Watkins, 
the  coloured  man  who  so  boldly  asserted  his  right  to  vote  on  the  occasion,  by 
his  manner,  made  an  impression  that  he  had  recently  received  such  instruc- 
tion from  Bishop  George.  In  this  there  was  a  mistake.  Some  friends  of  the 
prosecutions,  had  waited  on  the  coloured  preachers,  and  urged  them  to  be  in 
place  and  vote.  We  are  now  of  the  opinion,  that  the  Bishop's  view  of  their 
privileges,  had  been  presented  for  their  encouragement,  until  Watkins  and 
others,  had  associated  it  with  the  pending  transaction.  In  confirmation  of 
this  conjecture,  on  an  application  made  to  him  about  the  first  of  the  present 
year,  for  his  own  account  of  the  matter,  he  replied,  perhaps  hastily,  that  he 
had  reference  to  an  interview,  he  and  others  had  with  the  Bishop,  not  a  very 
long  time  before  the  District  Conference.  But  when  requested  to  make  a 
statement  of  it  in  writing,  he  asked  for  time,  to  see  Mr.  Hanson,  &c.  and  re- 
turned with  a  written  reply,  referring  the  interview  with  the  Bishop,  to  some 
time  between  1824  and  1826.  On  application  to  John  Fortie,  he  produced  a 
journal,  kept  by  himself,  by  which  it  appears,  that  it  took  place  in  March, 
1826.  In  course,  it  was  not  intended  for  the  occasion  to  which  it  was  applied; 
and  F.  Watkins  had  piobably  by  the  influence  above  noticed  given  to  it  an 
erroneous  association.  It  is,  however,  a  matter  of  no  importance,  although 
the  agent  would  wish  now  to  have  it  so.  If  this  incident  had  not  occurred 
at  all,  the  issue  would  have  been  the  same.  Independent  of  this,  we  knew, 
that  Bishop  George  approved  the  prosecutions,  and  took  pains  to  predispose 
some  of  our  friends  to  approve  our  expulsion,  when  it  should  be  accomplish- 
ed. Besides,  the  final  decision  of  the  General  Conference,  has  put  the  sub- 
ject altogether  at  rest.  By  that  act,  the  prosecution  with  all  its  absurdities 
and  severities,  received  the  approbation  of  the  Bishops  and  Conference. 


37 


nation  of  the  Mutual  Rights,  when  it  was  already  known  that 
its  condemnation  was  certain.  All  concluded,  that  the  General 
Conference,  when  they  should  be  made  acquainted  with  these  cir- 
cumstances, even  if  every  member  of  the  Conference  should  be 
hostile  to  reform,  for  the  credit  of  Methodism  and  their  own  repu- 
tation, ought  to  interpose,  reverse  the  decision  of  the  Quarterly 
Conference,  and  devise  some  plan  for  our  restoration; — one  in 
which  we  could  safely  and  honorably  concur. 

At  the  time  appointed,  the  Quarterly  conference  met,  and  after 
having  exhibited  an  extra  scene,  which  occupied  several  days,  in 
which  a  certain  Dr.  Green  was  the  ostensible  actor,  who  affected 
to  have  come  an  unsolicited  and  disinterested  mediator,  and  whose 
terms  for  our  return  to  submission,  we  shall  have  occasion  to  notice; 
the  Quarterly  Conference  proceeded  to  the  reading  of  the  selec- 
tions made  from  the  Mutual  Rights,  adding  we  presume,  their  sapi- 
ent comments,  as  published  in  the  Narrative  and  Defence;  and  so 
effectually  did  they  answer  the  intended  purpose,  "that  on  motion 
for  our  expulsion,  there  was  not  a  dissenting  voice." 


CHAPTER  VII. 

Memorial  sent  up  to  the  Baltimore  Annual  Conference. 

Agreeably  to  our  contemplated  course,  when  the  time  for  the 
meeting  of  the  Annual  Conference  was  approaching — in  April, 
1828,  we  prepared  and  sent  up  the  following 

MEMORIAL  TO  THE  ANNUAL  CONFERENCE. 

"This  memorial  of  the  undersigned,  late  ministers  and  members 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  the  city  of  Baltimore,  and 
who  have  recently  been  expelled  from  the  fellowship  of  said  church, 
respectfully  sheweth,  that  we  believe  we  have  been  unjustly  de- 
prived of  our  membership,  for  the  following  considerations: 

First.  We  consider  it  to  have  been  a  grievous  encroachment 
on  our  rights,  to  require  us  to  withdraw  from  the  Union  Society, 
and  to  demand  the  suppression  of  the  Mutual  Rights,  as  the  only 
condition  on  which  we  could  avoid  a  church  prosecution. 

Second.  We  consider  it  to  have  been  a  violation  of  the  dis- 
cipline, and  an  unjustifiable  neglect  of  a  well  known  duty  of  the 
preacher  having  the  pastoral  charge  of  the  station,  to  have  receiv- 
ed accusations  against  us  and  summoned  us  to  trial,  without 
having  previously  used  all  his  personal  influence  to  restore  and 
preserve  peace. 

Third.  We  consider  it  altogether  inconsistent  with  any  proper 
sense  of  justice,  that  we  should  have  been  subjected  to  trial  for 
publishing  papers,  the  authors  of  which,  being  members  and  minis- 
ters of  our  church,  were  left  unmolested;  although  the  names  of 
6 


38 


some  of  the  writers  were  made  public,  and  no  demand  had  been 
made  for  the  names  of  those  who  were  not  known.  This  con- 
sideration is  greatly  strengthened  by  the  fact,  that  some  of  the  papers 
to  which  exceptions  were  raised,  had  been  published  two  or  three 
years  previously,  and  daring  all  that  time  the  characters  of  such  of 
us  as  were  official  members,  had  been  regularly  passed,  without  ex- 
ception, by  the  quarterly  meeting  conferences,  of  which  our  prose- 
cutors were  members. 

Fourth.  We  consider  it  altogether  unreasonable  that  the  preach- 
er in  charge,  did  not  allow  time  to  the  chairman  of  the  editorial 
committee,  to  correspond  with  the  writers  of  the  papers  complain- 
ed of,  before  he  was  compelled  to  appear  and  answer; — thereby  sub- 
jecting him  and  all  of  us,  to  the  necessity  of  entering  our  protests 
against  the  illegality  and  injustice  of  the  procedure. 

Fifth.  We  consider  it  very  objectionable,  that  after  the  question 
upon  church  government  had  produced  so  much  excitement,  as  to 
lead  to  the  acknowledged  formation  of  two  parties;  one  party 
should  have  been  permitted  to  enlist  the  church  authorities,  to  aid 
them  in  the  expulsion  of  the  other  party; — which  of  course  pro- 
duced the  reproachful  consequence,  that  the  whole  of  the  pro- 
ceedings were  inevitably  conducted  in  an  exparte  manner. 

Sixth.  When  cited  to  trial,  the  committee  ought  to  have  been 
devoid  of  partiality  or  prejudice;  this  we  presume  will  not  be  de- 
nied;— but  the  fact  was  far  otherwise.  The  preacher  in  charge  se- 
lected the  two  committees  from  brethren  who  had  previously  voted 
at  a  select  meeting,  that  we  were  "enemies  of  Methodism." 
Moreover,  when  asked  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hanson,  if  we  had  any 
objection  to  the  committee,  and  after  their  own  acknowledgment 
that  they  had  voted  as  aforesaid,  yet  Mr.  Hanson  declared  them 
fully  competent,  and  they  were  retained,  notwithstanding  our  so- 
lemn protestations  against  such  a  procedure. 

Seventh.  We  consider  it  highly  objectionable,  that  although  the 
preacher  in  charge  was  respectfully  requested,  in  accordance  with 
the  general  if  not  universal  practice,  of  all  the  courts  of  enlighten- 
ed jurisprudence,  to  direct  the  reading  of  the  particular  words, 
sentences,  paragraphs,  or  sections,  which  were  to  be  relied  on,  as 
proof  of  objectionable  matter;  yet  Mr.  Hanson,  in  reply  to  the 
request  to  order  the  reading  of  such  parts  of  the  Mutual  Rights, 
as  were  expected  to  sustain  the  charges,  declared  it  could  not  be 
admitted,  and  the  committees  were  permitted  to  retire  with  all 
their  prejudices,  taking  with  them  the  Mutual  Rights,  in  extenso, 
on  which  to  form  their  decision,  without  having  given  an  oppor- 
tunity to  the  accused,  to  explain,  or  even  to  remove  wrong  im- 
pressions; and  this  consideration  acquires  additional  strength,  from 
the  fact,  that  the  explanations  of  the  writers  themselves,  which 
ought  to  have  been  had  in  the  case,  were  also  precluded,  the  un- 
deniable importance  of  which,  will  still  more  fully  appear,  by  re- 
ference to  a  late  paper,  written  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Shinn,  in  reply  to 
the  Narrative  and  Defence,  &c.  and  to  facts  which  transpired  in 
the  course  of  the  trials,  &c. 


39 


Eighth.  Had  we  been  required  to  correct  any  thing  that  was  er- 
roneous, in  previous  numbers  of  the  Mutual  Rights,  or  to  apolo- 
gize for  any  severity  of  expression,  or  to  explain,  or  to  rectify  any 
thing  that  might  have  led  a  reader  into  error,  we  hereby  declare, 
(as  was  declared  in  some  of  the  protests,)  that  we  should  most 
gladly  have  done  so,  both  as  a  matter  of  duty,  and  for  the  sake  of  our 
brethren,  but  these  were  not  the  conditions  proposed  to  us,  either 
by  our  brethren,  who  accused  us,  or  by  the  preacher,  who  expelled 
us.  They  required  us  to  abandon  the  Union  Society,  and  to  suppress 
the  Mutual  Rights,  the  most  proper  medium  through  which  the 
evils  complained  of,  if  they  really  existed,  could  be  corrected. 

Ninth.  It  may  be  asked,  why  did  not  the  lay  members  appeal 
to  the  Quarterly  Conference?  To  this  we  answer,  that  having 
protested  against  the  legality  of  the  whole  proceeding,  we  deemed 
it  improper.  The  impropriety  of  an  appeal  to  that  tribunal,  must 
have  appeared  with  irresistible  force  to  any,  knowing  as  we  did, 
that  nearly  all  of  its  members  had  been  actively  engaged  in  getting 
up  the  prosecution,  and  had  united  in  condemning  us  in  their  Pitt 
street  publication. 

Your  memorialists  forbear  to  state  numerous  other  facts  de- 
veloped in  the  course  of  the  prosecutions  and  trials,  calculated  in 
their  tendencies  and  issues,  not  only  to  degrade  us,  but  to  widen 
the  differences  among  brethren;  and  to  bring  lasting,  and  just  re- 
proach on  the  co-ordinate  executive  branches  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church. 

We,  therefore,  request  the  conference,  in  the  name  of  Him 
whom  we  all  profess  to  serve; — by  their  attachment  to  the  principles 
of  righteousness  and  the  interests  of  their  lacerated  Zion,  to  inter- 
pose and  restore  us  to  the  enjoyment  of  our  former  standing  in 
the  church  of  our  choice  and  affections,  from  which,  we  have 
been  unnaturally  severed.  Thereby  they  will  render  us  an  act  of 
justice,  and  insure  to  themselves,  an  ever  during  acclaim  from  the 
virtuous  and  the  good. 

Your  memorialists  would  finally  state,  that  no  malevolent  affec- 
tion has  place  in  their  souls,  against  either  of  the  prosecutors, 
preachers,  or  committees. 

At  the  same  time,  justice  and  propriety  demand  your  imme- 
diate investigation  of  the  official  conduct  of  the  Rev.  J.  M.  Han- 
son, and  that  of  the  Rev.  Joseph  Frye,  in  reference  to  our  particu- 
lar cases. 

That  the  great  Head  of  the  church  may  direct  your  deliberations 
in  this,  and  all  other  matters  which  are  interwoven  with  the  best 
interests  of  Zion,  is  the  sincere  prayer  of  your  memorialists. 

Baltimore,  April,  1828. 


40 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

Resolutions  of  the  Baltimore  Annual  Conference,  in  reply  to  our  me- 
morial, with  strictures,  and  a  copy  of  a  protest. 

To  this  memorial,  the  Conference  in  their  wisdom  and  fraternal 
wishes  to  recover  us,  returned  the  following  resolutions,  in  reply. 

RESOLUTIONS 

Passed  by  the  Baltimore  Annual  Conference,  in  reply  to  the  memorial  of  the 
expelled  brethren. 

1.  Resolved  by  the  Baltimore  Annual  Conference,  in  Conference 
assembled,  That  ministers  or  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  who  do  not  obey  the  citations  of  the  church  to  appear  be- 
fore inferior  judicatories,  in  cases  of  accusation  or  complaint;  or 
who  neglect  to  avail  themselves  of  the  intermediate  appellate  judi- 
dicatories,  for  redress  of  alleged  grievances,  are  not  entitled  to 
come  before  higher  judicatories,  either  as  appellants  or  complain- 
ants. 

2.  That  to  sanction  or  countenance  a  contrary  course  of  pro- 
ceeding, would  in  the  judgment  of  this  conference,  be  subversive 

Of  WHOLESOME  and  SOUND  DISCIPLINE. 

3.  That  if  the  suspended  local  preachers  in  Baltimore,  on  the 
dissolution  of  the  district  conference,  had  appeared  before  the 
quarterly  meeting  conference,  as  cited,  and  objected  to  the  juris- 
diction of  that  body,  if  they  thought  proper  to  do  so;  in  such  case, 
on  an  appeal,  this  conference  would  have  fully  considered  and  de- 
cided on  the  whole  subject,  embracing  the  question  of  the  legality 
of  the  dissolution  of  the  Baltimore  district  conference  and  the  ju- 
risdiction of  the  quarterly  meeting  conference.  But  as  those  local 
preachers  preferred  to  pursue  a  different  course,  and  one,  in  the 
judgment  of  this  conference,  both  irregular  and  disorderly,  mak- 
ing inflammatory  appeals  to  the  public,  declaring  that  they  had  no 
other  alternative,  and  that  a  church  court,  even  if  righteously  con- 
stituted, could  not  be  considered  to  have  admissible  jurisdiction  in 
such  a  case,  this  conference  judge  it  both  useless,  and  inconsis- 
tent with  correct  and  necessary  principles  of  discipline  and  order, 
in  these  circumstances  to  take  further  cognizance  of  the  subject. 

4.  That  the  secretary  be,  and  he  hereby  is  directed  to  furnish  a 
copy  of  the  preceding  resolutions  to  Dr.  Samuel  K.  Jennings,  and 
others,  signers  of  the  communication  from  Baltimore,  addressed 
to  the  Conference. 

Carlisle,  Penn.,  April  18,  1828. 

Is  not  this  a  queer  thing?  If  the  local  preachers  had  "appeared 
before  the  quarterly  meeting  conference  and  objected,"  they  would 
have  been  permitted  to  complain  and  appeal.  We  had  sent  in  a 
formal  protest,  addressed  to  the  presiding  elder,  as  will  be  seen 
presently,  but  as  we  failed  in  this  act  of  homage,  as  we  disregard- 


41 


ed  this  important  formality  of  the  courts  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  as  we  failed  to  appear  before  their  honours,  it  was  fatal 
to  our  cause!! 

PROTEST. 

TO  THE  REV.  JOSEPH  FRYE,  PRESIDING  ELDER. 

"We  the  subscrbers,  having  been  informed  by  your  note  of  the 
12th  instant,  of  your  intention,  to  bring  before  your  quarterly  meet- 
ing conference  of  the  Baltimore  city  station,  the  charges  and  speci- 
fications heretofore  alleged  against  us,  and  on  which  the  church 
authorities  of  this  station,  have  already  once  acted  and  ordered  our 
suspension;  and  that  you  say,  this  will  be  done  because  the  "dis- 
trict conference  refused  to  hold  its  regular  session."  We  hereby 
inform  you  that  as  the  district  conference  met,  was  legally  organ- 
ized, and  for  one  whole  day  and  more  continued  in  session,  ac- 
cording to  Discipline,  it  was,  therefore,  your  duty  to  have  continu- 
ed the  session  until  the  business  was  finished.  Instead  of  this,  you 
arbitrarily  received  a  vote  of  the  minority  of  the  attending  white 
members,  for  a  dissolution  of  the  conference,  and  pronounced  it 
dissolved,  accordingly. 

We,  therefore,  protest  against  your  right  to  bring  the  charges 
and  specifications  alleged  against  us,  before  the  quarterly  meeting 
conference. 

1st.  Because  we  consider  you  have  acted  without  law  or  prece- 
dent; and  that  the  provision  to  which  you  refer,  as  made  by  the  Dis- 
cipline, has  in  view  those  districts  only,  in  which  the  local  preach- 
ers "shall  refuse  or  neglect  to  hold  the  regular  sessions"  of  their 
district  conferences.  In  this  case,  the  preachers  had  actually  met 
and  commenced  their  regular  session:  moreover,  a  majority  of  the 
white  members  in  attendance,  were  in  favour  of  continuing  the 
conference. 

2d.  In  thus  arbitrarily  compelling  us  to  appear  before  the  quar- 
terly conference  of  the  Baltimore  city  station,  you  would  subject 
us  to  the  great  injustice,  of  being  tried  by  men,,  who  were  our  pro- 
secutors and  judges  in  the  first  instance,  together  with  those,  who 
had  virtually  pledged  themselves  to  sustain  the  prosecutions:  first, 
by  appointing  said  prosecutors  at  the  meeting,  held  in  RoszePs 
school  room;  and  secondly,  by  their  vote  for  the  publication  of  the 
Pitt  street  Address,  in  which  they  publicly  declare  us  to  be  the 
"enemies  of  Methodism." 

3d.  Besides,  in  consequence  of  the  course  that  you  have  pursu- 
ed, the  tribunal,  designated  by  the  Discipline,  as  the  place  of  trial 
for  local  preachers,  and  before  which  we  were  ready  to  appear, 
ceases  to  exist;  and  you  have  no  authority  to  bring  us  to  trial  be- 
fore any  other;  our  condition  is  altogether  novel,  and  not  within  the 
limits  of  the  jurisdiction  of  a  quarterly  meeting  conference.  Our 
case  necessarily  makes  its  appeal  to  the  general  conference,  since 
there  is  no  other  tribunal  which  can  have  a  right  to  say  what  shall 
be  done,  when  a  presiding  elder  shall  have  pronounced  a  district 
conference  dissolved,  notwithstanding  a  majority  of  those  interest- 


42 


ed,  shall  have  actually  met,  for  the  purpose  of  holding  their  regu- 
lar session,  declaring  themselves  meanwhile  opposed  to  a  dissolu- 
tion. 

4th.  The  illegality  and  impropriety  of  having  counted  the  votes 
of  coloured  men,  in  deciding  a  question  of  this  sort,  within  the 
limits  of  the  state  of  Maryland,  we  presume  will  not  be  questioned 
Samuel  K.  Jennings,    Thomas  M'Cormick 
Daniel  E.  Reese,         Luther  J.  Cox, 
James  R.  Williams,      John  S.  Reese, 
John  C  French,  John  Valiant, 

William  Kesley,  Reuben  T.  Boyd. 

Baltimore,  16th  January,  1828." 

This  paper  was  of  no  worth  with  the  Annual  Conference,  be- 
cause the  local  preachers  had  not  "appeared"  before  the  quarterly 
meeting  conference. 

After  all  these  things,  can  any  candid  reader  believe  that  the  An- 
nual Conference  acted  the  part  of  an  impartial  tribunal,  or  that  they 
pronounced  a  just  judgment?  We  gave  to  that  body,  a  faithful 
account  of  the  conduct  of  the  prosecution,  as  we  honestly  viewed 
it.  And  is  it  to  be  believed  that  a  body  of  disinterested  ministers  of 
the  gospel,  perhaps  seventy,  if  not  one  hundred  in  number,  could 
have  come  to  the  unfeeling  conclusion,  that  we  were  not  entitled  to 
one  word  of  complaint,  because  we  had  not  been  sufficiently  re- 
spectful towards  prosecutors  and  judges,  of  whom  we  had  complain- 
ed, under  circumstances  so  glaring?  We  did  believe  conscientious- 
ly, that  these  men  had  forfeited  our  confidence;  that  they  could  not 
have  been  impartial;  and  of  course  were  disqualified  to  sit  in  judg- 
ment upon  our  cases.  We  therefore,  solicited  the  interference  of 
the  Conference.  But  our  supplications  were  of  no  avail.  Those 
ministers  of  the  sanctuary,  notwithstanding  the  great  love  which 
they  professed  for  us,  thought  it  necessary  to  treat  us,  with  these 
hard  resolutions,  in  order  to  prevent  the  "subversion  of  wholesome 
and  sound  discipline." 

It  is  the  judgment  of  the  Baltimore  Annual  Conference,  that  the 
proceedings  of  the  Baltimore  station,  in  our  prosecution  and  ex- 
pulsion, are  fair  expressions  of  wholesome  and  sound  Episcopal 
Methodist  discipline!*  I  am  compelled  to  believe  that  these  men 
expected  their  resolutions  to  be  sustained  by  the  "Narrative  and 
Defence;"  by  the  official  book  which  contains  the  testimony  as  ex- 
tracted from  the  Mutual  Rights,  so  pressed  and  moulded  by  the  ex- 
planations and  pleadings  of  the  prosecution,  as  to  fit  them  to  the 
intended  purpose.  And  this  was  readily  done.  There  was  no  offset. 
They  had  it  all  in  their  own  hands.  They  managed  the  matter  as 
they  wished,  and  then,  in  this  book,  published  a  "plain  statement 
of  the  whole  affair;" — a  history  of  this  conspicuous  instance  of 
wholesome  and  sound  Episcopal  Methodist  Discipline! 

*  With  intention  to  1  'defecate,"  &c. ! ! 


43 


CHAPTER  IX. 

The  secret,  unintentionally  let  out,  that  one  leading  object  was,  the 
destruction  of  our  Union  Societies. 

This  standard  volume  informs  us,  that  "the  formation  of  the 
Union  Society  was  in  fact,  the  organization  of  a  schism,  and  that, 
had  no  Union  Society  been  established,  the  discussion  of  the  va- 
rious projects  of  reform  might  have  gone  on,  without  producing 
any  general  excitement  in  the  church;  whereas,  organizing  these 
societies,  incorporated  the  spirit  of  party."  See  Narrative  and 
Defence,  page  12.  This  is  an  acknowledgment  of  the  truth  of 
our  statement.  We  are  here  informed  what  was  in  reality  the 
"gist"  of  our  offences.  And  it  will  be  made  very  evident  that  the 
destruction  of  these  societies  and  the  discontinuance  of  the  Mu- 
tual Rights,  were  the  real  objects  to  be  accomplished,  and  that, 
because  they  considered  these  the  only  effectual  means  for  secur- 
ing the  attention  of  the  people. — the  means,  but  for  which,  "no 
general  excitement  in  the  church  could  have  been  produced." 

To  accomplish  the  intended  devastation  of  these  offensive  (be- 
cause they  were  efficient)  works  of  reformers,  it  was  important,  to 
find  some  one,  a  fast  friend  to  the  government  of  the  church, 
having  sufficient  zeal,  and  a  competent  degree  of  ingenuity,  so  to 
manage  matters,  that  in  the  event  of  a  refusal  on  the  part  of  the 
reformers,  to  receive  the  dictates  of  the  intended  prosecutors,  and 
a  consequent  recourse  to  expulsion,  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
community  and  the  world,  might  be  made  to  believe,  that  the 
church  took  no  authoritative  step  to  prevent  reform; — that  the  pro- 
secutions were  entered  upon  and  carried  into  effect,  by  lay  brethren, 
"without  any  itinerant  suggestion  or  influence  whatever;"  they 
(the  lay  brethren)  being  offended,  not  with  our  labours  to  bring 
about  reform,  but  with  the  manner  in  which  we  were  endeavour- 
ing to  accomplish  our  object. 


CHAPTER  X. 

Some  uncertainty  how  far  the  agent  had  previously  progressed  in 
making  preparation  for  the  Narrative  and  Defence. 

We  are  not  informed  with  positive  certainty,  that  the  entire  plan 
of  the  intended  book,  was  laid,  antecedent  to  the  appointment  of 
the  seven  prosecutors;  but  we  are  fully  satisfied,  that  some  one  or 
more,  had  been  employed  in  making  the  selections  from  the  Mu- 
tual Rights,  which  constitute  the  pith  of  the  Narrative  and  De- 
fence. It  is  very  probable,  that  they  were  made  and  submitted  to 
the  five  Bishops,  and  some  other  distinguished  travelling  preachers, 
who  were  in  the  city,  a  short  time  before  the  first  caucus  was  held 
at  Mr.  William  Brown's.    And  we  cannot  avoid  the  supposition, 


44 


that  it  was  previously  understood,  that  this  selection  when  it 
should  appear,  would  serve  to  justify  a  course  of  prosecutions  and 
expulsions,  if  that  should  become  "necessary"  for  the  accomplish- 
ment of  their  object.  The  knowing  ones  had  their  eyes  on  this, 
when  they  met  at  Dr.  Roszel's  school-room.  And  when  we  called 
on  Mr.  Harden,  and  took  occasion  to  intimate  the  possibility  of 
scandal  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  if  they  should  go  on 
with  their  contemplated  prosecutions;  he  said  in  reply,  "we  are 
prepared  to  meet  all  consequences,  and  when  we  shall  have  wound 
up  our  proceedings,  and  laid  before  the  public,  such  extracts  from 
the  Mutual  Rights,  fyc.  as  we  shall  be  able  to  make,  together  with 
our  comment  upon  them,  we  have  no  doubt  about  being  sustained  by 
the  public."* 

With  this  view  of  things,  we  are  prepared  to  understand  why 
there  was  such  a  disinclination  to  hear  the  reading  of  the  excep- 
tionable papers,  when  called  for,  by  brethren  on  their  trial,  and  why 
Mr.  Hanson  declared  it  unnecessary. 

With  a  strong  conviction  of  the  correctness  of  this  view,  a  few 
days  after  having  read  our  protests,  &,c.  before  the  seven  prosecu- 
tors, the  preacher  in  charge,  and  the  committee,  we  considered  it 
our  duty  to  publish  them.  This  publication  was  immediately  fol- 
lowed by  a  notification  of  the  intention  of  the  prosecutors  to  "pub- 
lish a  plain  statement  of  the  whole  affair." 

"Doctor  Samuel  K.  Jennings  having  endeavoured  to  forestall  the 
opinions  of  the  Methodist  public,  by  publishing  the  proceedings  in 
his  case,  before  the  decision  of  the  Committee  could  be  known — 
all  who  feel  any  concern  in  the  matter,  are  respectfully  requested 
to  suspend  their  judgment,  until  the  proceedings  shall  have  termi- 

*  Mr.  Harden  has  given  a  certificate,  contradicting-  this  statement;  and  al- 
leges, that  he  could  not  have  had  any  allusion  to  the  Narrative  and  Defence, 
because  they  had  not  at  that  time  determined  to  publish  such  a  Narrative  and 
Defence,  nor  until  the  publication  of  our  protest  had  made  it  necessary: 
And  to  sustain  himself,  he  appeals  to  his  coadjutors  in  the  prosecution.  This 
conversation  had  with  Mr.  Harden,  was  published  in  October,  1828,  whilst  it 
was  fresh  in  our  recollection;  and  many  of  our  friends  know,  that  we  report- 
ed it  to  them,  immediately  after  it  took  place.  We  still  assert  it  to  be  true, 
as  then  published.  There  was  no  witness  present.  We  affirm  and  appeal 
to  our  publication  made  more  than  two  years  ago.  He  denies,  and  sustains 
himself  by  a  declaration,  that  they  had  not  then  determined  to  publish  the  Nar- 
rative and  Defence.  Here  we  are  at  issue.  Immediately  after  our  publica- 
tion appeared,  Mr.  Harden  came  out  with  his  contradictions,  and  claimed  a 
"faithful  detail,  and  correct  statement  of  all  the  leading  points  *  *  *  the 
whole  truth."  And  then  in  view  of  the  whole  truth,  took  his  imaginary  ex- 
ceptions. We  reviewed  his  paper  and  proved  by  himself,  that  we  did  not  differ. 
What  we  wish  the  reader  to  observe  particularly,  is,  that  Mr.  Harden  in  view 
of  the  whole  truth,  did  not  then  pretend  to  deny  this  very  prominent  item.  We 
will  not  say  that  he  did  not  then  foresee,  that  a  denial  of  this  "leading  point" 
would  be  necessary,  to  save  the  reputation  of  the  agent.  But  we  will  say, 
he  acted  unadvisedly,  and  cannot  have  been  well  informed,  respecting  the 
hazard  and  difficulty  of  attempting  to  prove  a  negative:  moreover,  that  he 
must  have  great  reliance  upon  his  weight  of  character.  We  will  only  add, 
that  he  himself  has  seen  fit  to  suspend  the  scale  and  compel  us  to  be  con- 
tented, to  let  the  public  judge. 


45 


nated,  when  a  plain  statement  of  the  whole  affair  will  be  pub- 
lished. 

George  Earnest,  Alexander  Yearley, 

Jacob  Rogers,  John  Berry, 

Isaac  N.  Toy,  Fielder  Israel. 
Samuel  Harden. 
October  3,  1827. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

The  Quarterly  Conference  unanimously  condemn  the  Mutual  Rights, 
and  it  is  admitted  by  the  Agent,  that  a  majority  of  them  had  not 
read  the  work  at  all. 

The  "plain  statement"  turned  out  to  be  the  Narrative  and  De- 
fence. The  selections  introduced  into  it,  were  read  before  the  Quar- 
terly Conference,  "and  such  was  the  effect  produced  by  the  reading 
of  the  passages  from  the  Mutual  Rights,  on  which  the  charges  rest- 
ed," together  with  the  agent's  comments  on  them,  "that  although 
much  difference  of  opinion  was  known  to  have  previously  existed 
among  the  members,  in  reference  to  the  cases  before  them,  there 
was  no  dissenting  vote  on  the  motion  to  expel."  This  appear- 
ance of  unanimity  was  thought  important,  in  order  to  make  the 
Narrative  and  Defence,  look  by  so  much,  the  more  respectable. 
To  secure  this  unanimity,  Mr.  Hanson  removed  six  class  leaders, 
and  by  so  doing,  "cleared  the  way  for  an  unresisted  exercise  of 
the  intention  of  the  government  party." 

The  intention  was,  to  make~fhe  impression  that  the  prosecu- 
tions were  not  only  instituted  and  conducted  by  i(lay  brethren" 
but  that  these  lay  brethren  were  unanimous;  of  course  that  they 
were  altogether  in  the  right,  and  Reformers  altogether  in  the 
wrong.  For  how  could  the  entire  body  of  official  members  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  city  of  Baltimore,  the  great 
seat  of  Methodism,  be  unanimous  on  a  subject  so  momentous,  if 
there  were  any  possible  room  for  doubt?  There  was  deep  policy 
in  securing  this  unanimous  vote.  But  unhappily  for  the  scheme, 
the  means  which  were  used  to  bring  it  about,  serve  to  lay  it  open 
to  public  view. 

On  the  29th  page  of  the  Narrative  and  Defence,  the  same  which 
records  this  wonderful  unanimity,  we  read,  "It  is  now  ascertained, 
that  a  great  proportion  of  the  Conference,  so  far  from  having  made 
up  their  opinion  before  the  trials,  ******  had  not  even  read  the 
Mutual  Rights  at  all,  and  therefore  could  not  have  made  up  a  pre- 
mature verdict."  This  is  an  important  disclosure.  It  is  an  ac- 
knowledgment, that  the  Narrative  and  Defence  contains  all  that 
"a  great  proportion  of  the  Conference"  knew  about  the  Mutual 
Rights,  consequently  all  that  they  knew  about  the  designs,  opera- 
tions, or  offences  of  Union  Societies  or  Reformers.  That  they 
had  heard  just  so  much,  as  our  prosecutors  saw  fit  to  read,  and  no 
more.    That  they  had  heard  their  own  side  only,  without  correc- 


46 


tion  or  contradiction.  The  prosecutors  who  had  been  appointed 
by  them,  had  made  out  charges  and  specifications  to  correspond 
with  the  selections  previously  made.  And  having  now  officially 
given  to  them  their  intended  personal  application,  they  submitted 
the  whole  to  the  Conference;  and  of  course,  they  all  with  one  ac- 
cord approved  their  own  handy  work,  and  affixed  to  it  the  seal,  of  a 
unanimous  vote  for  our  expulsion.  What  a  triumph!  What  a 
memorable  unanimity!! 

To  give  to  this  unanimity  the  more  importance,  the  Narrative 
and  Defence  says,  a  great  proportion  of  them,  had  not  read  the 
Mutual  Rights  at  all;  and  therefore,  could  not  have  made  up  their 
opinion  before  the  trials.  Here,  without  intending  it,  they  ac- 
knowledge that  they  ought  to  have  read  the  work,  before  they 
made  up  their  opinion.  But  they  must  have  forgotten,  that  a  great 
proportion  of  these  same  men,  had  united  in  the  vote  at  the  Pitt 
and  Front  street  meeting,  where  they  reiterated  and  adopted  the 
opinion  of  the  Annual  Conference,  "that  the  Mutual  Rights  was 
an  improper  work  ###*,  a  work  in  which  anonymous  writers  were 
permitted  to  abuse  and  defame  the  travelling  preachers,"  &lc.  &c. 
bearing  witness  against  themselves  that  they  had  made  up  an 
opinion  before  the  trials,  and  that,  when  they  did  it  they  had  not 
read  the  work  at  all!  And  here  they  acknowledge,  moreover,  that 
they  commenced  their  prosecuting  operations  under  the  influence 
of  the  opinions  of  the  Conference,  although  they  have  told  the 
world  in  this  same  Narrative  and  Defence,  that  the  prosecutions 
were  instituted  and  carried  into  effect  by  lay  brethren,  "without  any 
itinerant  suggestion  or  influence  whatever." 

After  all  these  acknowledgements  it  is  very  obvious,  that  "a 
great  proportion  of  these  men"  moved  under  the  direction  or  in- 
fluence of  the  master  spirit.  They  confided  the  cause  to  those 
who  would  manage  it,  expecting  to  be  sustained  by  the  intended 
Narrative  and  Defence.  For,  surely,  they  could  not  have  known 
the  ruinous  fact,  that  this  "plain  statement  of  the  whole  affair"  is 
nothing  more  than  an  exparte  account  of  matters,  and  that  in  view 
of  the  Mutual  Rights,  as  a  whole,  the  extracts  and  comments,  pre- 
sent a  very  incorrect  account  of  the  spirit  and  works  of  the  friend3 
of  reform.  That  this  is  the  fact,  will  be  seen  by  the  careful  and 
candid  reader,  before  we  shall  have  concluded  this  review. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

They  did  not  intend  to  effect  any  correction  of  our  manner  of  publish- 
ing, Sfc.  but  to  expel  us.    Their  patience  was  worn  out. 

It  is  not  probable  that  our  prosecutors  foresaw,  that  a  dissolu- 
tion of  the  District  Conference,  would  lead  to  a  resolution  on  our 
part,  not  to  appear  before  the  Quarterly  Conference,  and  by  so 
doing,  afford  them  the  opportunity  of  reading  their  extracts,  with- 
out oppositon  or  contradiction.    But  they  were  prepared,  and  had 


41 


no  doubt  of  an  "unanimous  vote  for  our  expulsion."  This  unan- 
imity,  in  aid  of  the  Narrative  and  Defence,  was  to  enable  them, 
the  more  certainly  to  persuade  the  Methodist  community,  that  the 
expulsion  of  the  reformers  was  not  at  all  intended  to  interdict  the 
freedom  of  speech  and  of  the  press,  but  was  a  godly  execution  of 
"wholesome  and  sound  discipline."  That  Ihey  were  moved,  by  the 
very  pious  and  laudable  design,  of  correcting  the  licentious  abuses 
of  liberty,  practised  by  the  Union  Societies.  The  merits  of  this 
pretension,  shall  be  more  fully  examined. 

Two  things  can  be  demonstrated.  1st.  They  had  no  intention 
to  correct  the  manner  of  our  publications.  2d.  They  did  not  in- 
tend to  permit  us  to  remain  in  their  fellowship,  unless  we  would 
consent  to  give  up  reform.  See  their  Narrative  and  Defence, 
page  17. 

After  a  dissertation  on  our  resolutions  respecting  the  proceed- 
ings of  Baltimore  Annual  Conference,  in  Rev.  D.  B.  Dorsey's 
case,  they  say,  "it  was  evident  now,  to  the  most  incredulous,  that 
these  measures  could  not  be  the  work  of  reformers,  but  of  revolu- 
tionists. Their  object  could  not  be  to  amend,  but  to  destroy." — 
All  hope  of  returning  peace  was  now  cut  off,  and  those,  who  all 
along  discouraged  the  enforcement  of  discipline  on  the  offenders, 
###***  Degan  reluctantly  to  yield  to  the  absolute  necessity  of  the 
measure.  In  fact,  human  patience,  even  the  meekness  of  Chris- 
tianity" [as  far  as  it  had  influence  over  the  official  members  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  the  city  of  Baltimore,]  "could  en- 
dure no  more."  That  is  to  say,  it  was  considered  necessary  on  all 
hands,  to  put  down  the  reformers;  "to  enforce  the  disciple  on  these 
offenders."  What  else  could  they  do?  Their  patience  was  worn 
out.  Their  meekness,  that  peculiar  grace  of  the  christian,  had  been 
put  to  a  test,  so  severe,  that  it,  too,  had  failed.  No  preacher, 
itinerant  or  local,  nor  lay  member,  had  ever  in  person,  or  by  letter, 
expressed  to  us  any  dissatisfaction,  respecting  the  spirit  or  manner 
of  the  papers  that  had  been  published  in  the  Mutual  Rights,  al- 
though their  patience  and  meekness  had  been  so  sorely  tried,  for 
almost  four  years:  except  only,  that  bishop  Hedding  called  on  us 
a  short  time  before  the  prosecutions  were  instituted,  for  the  proper 
name  of  Timothy.  The  name  of  Timothy  was  given  to  the  bishop; 
and  that  unimportant  transaction,  includes  the  whole  of  the  cor- 
respondence, which  the  rulers  of  the  church  ever  sought,  or  con- 
descended to  hold  with  us,  all  the  time  that  their  patience  and 
meekness  were  wearing  out! 

On  page  18,  Narrative  and  Defence,  we  read,  "And  they,"  the 
committee  appointed  to  prosecute,  "determined  forthwith  to  visit 
the  members  of  the  Union  Society  to  admonish  them  of  their  error, 
and  expostulate."  They  could  not  have  been  in  very  good 
frame  of  mind,  to  undertake  fraternal  visits  and  persuade  brethren 
to  give  up  reform,  when,  by  their  own  confession,  the  labours  of 
reformers  had  put  their  patience  to  the  rout,  and  their  "meekness 
could  endure  no  more."!!  Here  we  pause  to  consider,  that  the  pa- 
tience of  these  administators  of  wholesome  and  sound  discipline  was 
worn  out,  but  not  by  having  "taken  us  individually  alone,"  and 


48 


expostulated  with  us  without  effect,  till  our  "obstinacy"  had  worn 
out  their  patience; — not  by  having  taken  with  them  one  or  two  more 
and  with  pains  in  brotherly  love,  laboured  again  and  again,  to  excite 
in  us  the  desired  repentance.  There  was  no  disposition  for  such 
procedure.  There  was  "an  absolute  necessity  to  enforce  the  dis- 
cipline on  the  offenders."  They  had  no  thought  of  making  peace; 
"all  hope  of  returning  peace  was  now  cut  off."  Their  peace  making 
graces  "could  endure  no  more,"  and  like  other  angry  masters,  they 
now  determined  to  command  the'peace,  and  enforce  it  too; — to  com- 
pel us  to  be  submissive  or  expel  us  out  of  the  church. 

It  was  soon  rumored  abroad  through  the  city,  that  such  a  reso- 
lution had  been  adopted;  in  consequence  of  which,  one  of  our 
brethren,  a  local  preacher,  had  an  interview  with  a  distinguished 
member  of  the  prosecuting  committee,  and  requested  information 
on  the  subject.  "You  and  your  friends,"  said  he,  "are  members  of 
the  Union  Society,  and  say  you  will  not  leave  it. — You  publish  the 
Mutual  Rights,  and  say  you  will  not  discontinue  that  publication. — 
You  also  say  you  will  not  withdraw  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  Now  we  are  reduced  to  one  of  two  alternatives;  either  to 
let  you  remain  members  of  the  church,  and  go  on  peaceably  pub- 
lishing the  Mutual  Rights,  by  which  you  agitate  the  church,  or 
expel  you.  We  have  come  to  the  determination,  to  take  the  latter 
alternative,  and  expel  you."  As  might  have  been  expected,  every 
member  of  the  Union  Society  was  roused  at  the  threat  of  being 
subjected  to  such  magisterial  Coercion:  and  whilst  they  were  de- 
liberating how  they  were  to  meet  an  attack  of  this  sort,  if  it  should 
be  made,  which  they  could  hardly  believe  would  be  attempted,  all 
their  doubts  were  ended  by  the  following  note,  which  had  the  sig- 
natures of  the  seven  prosecutors  in  due  form,  and  was  addressed 
to  Mr.  John  Chappell,  President  of  the  Union  Society. 

"The  undersigned,  believing  that  the  members  of  the  Baltimore 
Union  Society,  have  violated  the  discipline  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  and  being  desirous  to  have  a  friendly  interview  with 
them  individually,  previous  to  instituting  charges  against  them,  if 
necessary.  We  respectfully  request  to  be  furnished  with  the  names 
of  the  members  of  said  Union  Society." 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

The  "friendly  interview"  sought  forty  the  prosecutors,  was  an  oppor- 
tunity to  make  their  most  arrogant  demands. 

We  were  now  officially  informed,  that  the  church  officers  had 
already  organized  their  prosecuting  committee,  with  intention  to 
institute  charges  "if  necessary."  It  only  remained  for  us  to  be  in- 
formed, on  what  ground  the  necessity  would  be  made  to  rest,  in 
order  to  judge  of  their  entire  design.  And  this  information  was 
soon  furnished  by  the  prosecutors,  who  proceeded  to  make  their 
visits.    Two  of  the  seven  waited  on  the  writer  of  this  review. 


4<J 


See  Narrative  and  Defence,  page  20.    It  was  not  their  object,  as 
may  be  seen  by  reading  their  book,  to  ask  in  a  friendly  way,  nor 
even  authoratively  to  require,  any  correction  of  some  one  or  more 
of  the  essays  which  had  been  published;  nor  to  require  the  names 
of  any  of  the  writers  of  them;  nor  to  ask  or  require  any  change  in 
the  manner  of  conducting  the  periodical.    They  came  to  let  him 
know,  that  it  was  "necessary"  that  he  should  use  his  influence  to 
effect  a  dissolution  of  the  Union  Society,  or  withdraw  from  it,  and 
cease  to  publish  the  Mutual  Rights.    "In  as  much"  said  they  "as 
the  Union  Society  and  Mutual  Rights,  have  become  so  completely 
identified  with  the  evils  of  which  we  complain,  we  deem  it  indis- 
pensable, that  you  should  dissolve  your  connexion  with  them." 
The  points  upon  which  the  necessity  turned,  were  now  presented. 
The  Union  Societies  had  "incorporated  the  spirit  of  party." 
Through  their  aid,  the  Mutual  Rights  had  produced  much  excite- 
ment, and  bid  fair  to  extend  it  far  and  wide.    The  reformers  were 
not  children,  whose  works  were  likely  to  be  abortive.    They  had 
employed  ways  and  means,  which  were  not  to  be  resisted.    It  was 
"necessary"  therefore,  that  they  should  be  met  by  the  arm  of  power 
and  compelled  to  obey  the  dictates  of  their  masters.    In  the  most 
unqualified  manner  imaginable,  the  two  prosecutors  let  him  know, 
that  their  opinion  must  regulate  his  conduct,  and  that  obedience  on 
his  part  was  "indispensable."    And  yet  they  said  "they  did  not 
wish  nor  require  him,  to  make  a  sacrifice  of  conscience  or  of  prin- 
ciple."   He  might  call  himself  a  reformer,  and  speak,  write  and 
petition,  "in  a  temperate  and  christian  like  manner,  in  favour  of 
reform!!"    That  is  to  say,  he  must  do  what  they  had  commanded; 
and  although  he  had  laboured  much,  for  four  years,  to  establish 
Union  Societies,  and  give  effect  to  the  periodical,  he  must  instant- 
ly, at  their  bidding,  turn  round  and  destroy  the  one,  and  disgrace 
the  other,  and  then,  save  his  reputation,  and  conscience,  and  self 
respect,  if  he  could,  by  calling  himself  a  reformer  still.    And  if  he 
would  let  them  be  judges  of  what  he  might  say,  and  write,  and 
petition,  after  this  explanation  of  what  they  deemed  necessary,  he 
might  still  speak,  and  write,  and  petition!!    He  felt  commiseration 
for  the  men,  who  in  their  great  zeal  to  maintain  the  power  of  the  trav- 
elling preachers,  gave  such  proof,  how  little  they  understood  them- 
selves, when  they  talked  about  making  a  sacrifice  of  conscience  or 
principle.    These  men,  under  circumstances  so  highly  offensive, 
waited  on  him;  not  to  ask  in  a  becoming  manner,  what  they  had 
a  right  to  ask,  the  correction  of  any  misstatement,  which  they  were 
ready  to  specify  and  prove  to  be  incorrect,  but  to  dictate  a  destruc- 
tion of  all  our  labours,  and  to  let  us  know,  that  we  must  obey  their 
commands,  or  expect  expulsion!    They  probably  considered  it  a 
godly  visit.    We  viewed  it  at  the  time,  as  an  insolent  interference 
with  our  rights,  as  christians  and  American  citizens.    And  we  now 
say,  the  "wholesome  and  sound  discipline"  which  they  were  prepar- 
ing to  execute,  was  a  conspiracy  against  the  rights  of  reformers, 
for  which  intelligent  Methodists  throughout  the  United  States, 
ought  to  be  ashamed,  since  it  has  had  the  sanction  of  the  General 
Conference. 


50 


We  ask  the  intelligent  reader,  now  carefully  to  consider  the  de- 
mand, to  which,  in  their  opinion  obedience  was  so  "necessary,"  so 
absolutely  indispensable?  Had  it  been  any  affair  of  individual  in- 
terest or  of  individual  misunderstanding,  it  would  have  been  an 
easy  task  for  us  to  have  suffered  wrong.  Even,  if  it  had  been  a 
misunderstanding,  which  extended  no  farther  than  that  portion  of 
the  Union  Societies,  which  resided  in  the  city  of  Baltimore,  im- 
portant as  the  effect  would  have  been,  we  should  have  considered 
it  a  duty  to  signify  to  them  our  readiness,  to  endeavour  to  be  ac- 
commodating. But  the  case  was  altogether  different.  The  editorial 
committee  had  been  engaged  in  the  publication  of  the  Mutual 
Rights,  nearly  four  years.  During  the  whole  of  that  time,  we  had 
been  of  the  committee.  Our  list  of  subscribers  had  been  greatly 
extended,  and  was  receiving  daily  accessions.  Thousands  read 
our  paper  with  interest.  The  Wesleyan  Repository  had  been  so  re- 
sisted by  the  friends  of  power,  that  that  it  had  become  necessary  to 
exchange  it,  for  the  Mutual  Rights.  Experience  had  demonstrated 
the  necessity  of  sustaining  the  periodical,  by  the  organization  of 
Union  Societies.  Such,  indeed,  had  been  their  effect,  that  we 
were  entirely  satisfied  with  our  prospect  of  success,  and  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  power  party  prove,  that  they  were  no  less  appre- 
hensive of  the  ultimate  result.  Were  we  not  bound  by  every  con- 
sideration of  justice  and  propriety,  to  say  to  them  in  reply,  that  we 
considered  their  attempt  at  coercion,  in  this  matter,  altogether  out 
of  the  way?  In  fact,  if  obedience  had  been  the  price  of  personal 
safety,  the  price  would  have  been  considered  too  dear.  It  is  be- 
lieved, we  would  not  have  yielded  the  rights  for  which  we  contend- 
ed, under  existing  circumstances,  to  have  saved  our  lives. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

The  transaction  which  doctor  Bond  has  named  "an  underplot." 

Very  soon  after  this  visit,  the  intended  charges  were  laid  before 
the  preacher.  But  before  the  trials  commenced,  doctor  Bond  took 
occasion,  on  his  own  responsibility,  to  offer  terms  to  the  Union 
Society,  which  if  accepted,  he  ventured  to  engage  for  the  prosecu- 
tions, that  they  should  be  dismissed.  See  Narrative  and  Defence, 
pages  24,  25. 

The  first  intention  of  this  overture,  was,  if  the  Union  Society 
would  agree  to  meet  it  with  their  approbation,  to  accomplish  the 
same  objects,  the  dissolution  of  the  Society,  and  the  destruction  or 
neutralization  of  the  Mutual  Rights.  "The  Union  Society  shall  be 
dissolved"  said  he  in  his  proposals,  "and  not  re-organized  in  the 
present  or  any  other  form."  And  all  papers  intended  for  publica- 
tion in  the  Mutual  Rights,  "shall  be  submitted  to  three  persons, 
chosen  mutually,  by  the  reformers  and  the  committee  who  have  pre- 
ferred charges  against  some  of  them,  who  shall  be  authorized  to  ex- 
punge all  objectionable  passages  therefrom."    Of  course  no  paper 


51 


could  have  been  published  unless  it  had  the  approbation  of  men, 
in  the  confidence  of  the  worst  enemies  of  reform.  And  every 
candid  reader  must  see,  that  such  an  arrangement  was  more  offen- 
sive, than  the  demand  made  by  the  prosecutors  themselves.  What 
man,  not  under  the  influence  of  blind  passion,  could  have  pro- 
posed to  his  fellow  citizens,  terms  so  degrading?  But  these  pro- 
positions were  not  terms  of  a  brotherly  compromise,  offered  in  the 
true  spirit  of  conciliation.  Charges  were  already  preferred  against 
us,  and  the  dread  consequences  of  excommunication  were  held  up, 
in  terrorem,  over  our  heads.  So  that  these  appearances  of  accom- 
modation, were  in  reality  inquisitorial  dictations,  of  the  most  offen- 
sive kind,  made  the  more  repulsive,  by  the  obliquity  which  marked 
the  manner  of  their  introduction. 

There  was  also  a  second  intention  in  making  these  overtures. 
If  the  Union  Society  should  reject  these  terms,  then  this  kindly 
interference  of  the  doctor,  was  to  make  a  fine  figure  in  the  Narra- 
tive and  Defence,  and  be  additional  proof  of  the  "obstinacy"  of 
reformers. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

The  appendage  to  the  "underplot"  which  is  noticed  in  the  introduc- 
tory chapter,  as  ihe  collateral  plot. 

For  the  same  purposes,  and  to  give  still  greater  formality  and 
notoriety  to  their  pretensions  to  make  peace,  doctor  Green  was  sent 
for.  They  would  then  be  prepared  to  say,  that  these  two  doctors, 
both  disinterested,  had  used  their  influence  to  prevail  on  the  reform- 
ers to  accept  terms  of  reconciliation,  but  they  had  "obstinately" 
rejected  them  both. 

Had  doctor  Green  come  to  use  his  influence  in  reviving  the  pa- 
tience and  meekness  of  our  prosecutors: — had  he  exerted  himself  to 
dissuade  them  from  their  tyrannical  and  repulsive  proceedings,  that 
they  might  seek  an  understanding  with  us,  upon  principles  of 
equality  and  brotherly  love,  then  indeed  he  would  have  merited  the 
reputable  appellation  of  a  mediator.  But,  as  he  came  to  reiterate 
the  same  offensive  proprositions,  which  were  obviously  intended  to 
effect  the  utter  destruction  of  reform,  we  were  compelled  to  con- 
sider him  an  insidious  enemy.  And  that  his  mediatorial  proposi- 
tions, were  drawn  up  under  the  influence  and  advice,  if  not  the 
dictation  of  doctor  Bond,  we  can  have  no  doubt.  A  note  was 
picked  up  among  the  papers  swept  from  the  conference  room,  ad- 
dressed to  doctor  Bond,  bearing  date  the  same  day  that  doctor 
Green  wrote  his  first  letter.  It  was  to  inform  doctor  Bond  that 
doctor  Green  had  arrived,  and  to  request  him  to  come  up  to  dinner 
or  soon  afterwards.  And,  although  doctor  Green  says  in  his  se- 
cond letter,  C'I  set  out  from  my  family  and  my  home,  with  intention 
to  volunteer  as  a  mediator  in  this  case,  without  being  solicited  to 
do  so,  by  any  one.    Yet  he  was  sent  for. 


52 


After  the  receipt  of  the  last  letter  addressed  to  us  by  doctor 
Green,  we  wrote  the  following  general  reply,  which  perhaps  he  did 
not  receive.  At  any  event,  it  is  not  recollected  with  certainty, 
whether  it  was  forwarded.  It  is  now  published,  because  it  presents 
the  subject  of  his  correspondence  and  mediation,  in  the  light  in 
which  we  then  viewed  it. 

"January,  1829. 

Dear  Sir, 

"As  you  addressed  to  me,  your  letters  of  introduction,  to  what 
you  saw  proper  to  offer  as  your  volunteer  work  of  mediation  be- 
tween the  contending  parties,  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
you  will  permit  me  to  trouble  you  with  one  in  the  conclusion. 

"Your  first  was  written  in  a  style  and  manner,  which  very  much 
prepossessed  me  in  your  favour,  and  led  me  to  expect,  that,  as  you 
had  come  a  hundred  miles  to  volunteer  as  a  mediator,  you  would 
inquire  into  the  amount  of  our  grievances;  take  measures  to  hear 
our  explanation  of  the  principal  occasions  which  had  produced 
those  publications,  which,  it  is  alleged,  provoked  the  old-side  bre- 
thren to  institute  their  prosecutions;  inquire  into  the  propriety  or 
impropriety  of  their  proceedings; — by  an  equal  consideration  of 
the  claims  or  complaints  of  each,  and  a  dignified,  impartial  and 
christian  like  attention  to  both,  ascertain  which  side  had  greatest 
cause  of  complaint,  and  in  full  view  of  the  whole,  act  the  part  of  a 
real  and  trust-worthy  mediator.  But  I  am  sorry  to  say,  that  your 
second  communication  compelled  me  to  change  my  opinion: — 
That  it  destroyed  all  my  hopes.  For  instead  of  any  thing  like  a 
mediation  on  just  and  equal  principles,  you  made  it  obvious,  that 
you  had  volunteered,  to  unite  your  talent  and  influence,  with  the 
power  and  authority  of  the  city  station,  with  an  intention  to  induce 
reformers  to  receive  the  same  dictates,  which  we  had  unanimously 
considered  tyrannical,  had  firmly  rejected,  and  in  view  of  which, 
had  determined  to  become  martyrs  for  the  cause  of  emancipation 
in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Indeed,  I  am  not  at  all  sur- 
prised to  learn  from  a  brother,  who  obtained  the  information  from 
yourself,  that  you  had  spent  much  of  your  time  with  doctor  Bond; 
because  the  terms  which  you  offered,  were  in  substance  and  in  their 
intended  effect,  the  same  that  he  had  assumed  the  liberty  to  offer 
to  us,  on  his  own  individual  account. 

"I  must  frankly  say  to  you,  that  the  pains  you  have  taken  must 
be  considered  by  all  well  informed  men,  to  have  been  produced, 
not  by  any  wish  in  the  character  of  a  disinterested  mediator,  to  do  an 
act  of  equal  justice  to  us  and  the  prosecutors;  but  by  an  intense  zeal 
to  save  the  church  from  merited  scandal;  either  by  bringing  us  to  sub- 
mission, and  by  so  doing,  justify  the  "constituted  authorities  of  the 
church;"  or  in  case  of  failure  in  that  purpose,  afford  them  an  oc- 
casion to  say,  we  were  obstinate  and  perverse,  in  refusing  an  over- 
ture of  peace.  I  hope,  sir,  you  will  not  flatter  yourself  or  your 
party,  (for  you  must  excuse  me  in  identifying  you  with  our  adver- 
saries,) that  because  you  have  seen  fit  to  call  your  dictates,  honoura- 
ble terms  of  reconciliation,  that  disinterested  men  will  consider  them 


53 


in  that  light.  The  world  will  know  by  the  first  exposition  of  the 
transaction,  that  you  have  evinced  no  concern  for  the  honour  of 
reformers,  but  the  utmost  solicitude  for  that  of  the  men  in  power. 
But  what  is  most  strange  and  most  strongly  confirms  the  truth  of 
the  above  imputation,  is  the  fact,  that  when  your  own  judgment 
had  led  you  to  anticipate  our  intention  to  propose  a  committee  on 
our  part,  to  meet  a  similar  committee  on  the  part  of  the  Quarterly 
Meeting  Conference,  and  which  was  rejected  on  the  part  of  the 
prosecution,  you  persevered  in  offering  your  own  offensive  propo- 
sals to  the  oppressed  brethren,  in  your  letter  to  the  chairman  of  our 
committee. 

I  repeat  it  sir,  if  you  left  home  with  intention  to  be  a  media- 
tor; by  mingling  with  our  persecutors,  either  imperceptibly  or  by 
design,  you  forgot  the  object  of  your  visit,  and  undertook  the  office 
of  a  minister  for  the  ty?annical  party,  in  order  to  aid  them  in  their 
endeavours  to  establish  their  authority  over  us,  in  a  measure  to 
which  we  had  refused  to  submit.  It  is  very  clear,  that  the  object 
was  to  secure  an  acknowledgment  of  guilt  on  our  part,  in  order  to 
justify  "the  constituted  authorities  of  the  church,"  and  at  the  same 
time,  effect  the  destruction  of  all  our  means  of  future  success; — 
and  thus  save  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  from  her  deserved 
reproach,  and  retain  to  her  the  same  dominion  with  unabated 
authority.  But,  sir,  your  party  has  taught  us  to  be  wary, 
and  by  the  blessing  of  God,  we  have  escaped  your  snare.  With 
sincere  good  wishes  for  your  personal  happiness,  and  the  most  ardent 
prayers,  that  the  men  in  power  may  see  their  mistake,  I  subscribe 
myself,  S.  K.  J. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

The  Destruction  of  the  Mutual  Rights  and  Union  Societies, — the 
Alpha  and  Omega  of  the  prosecutions. 

The  two  prosecutors  officially  appointed  to  wait  on  us  before 
citing  us  to  trial,  said,  inasmuch  as  the  Union  Society  and  Mutual 
Rights,  had  become  so  completely  identified  with  the  evils  of  which 
they  complained,  they  deemed  it  indispensable  that  we  should  dis- 
solve our  connexion  with  them. 

On  the  evening  of  our  trial,  Mr.  Israel,  on  the  part  of  the  prose- 
cution, came  out  in  the  same  open  and  candid  manner  in  which 
he  gave  the  desired  information  when  called  on  by  brother  James 
R.  Williams,  and  said,  "we  regret  that  this  course  was  unavoida- 
ble; we  had  no  other  alternative;  we  were  driven  to  this  course. 
We  have  been  told  by  the  members  of  the  Union  Society,  that  they 
must  have  lay  delegation.  They  also  say,  they  never  will  withdraw 
from  the  church.  Lay  delegation  we  believe,  is  not  practicable  or 
expedient.  With  these  views,  we  never  can  agree;  we  are  as  dis- 
tant as  the  poles.  The  Mutual  Rights  has  produced  wranglings, 
disputations  and  divisions;  it  has  produced  two  parties.  Every 
8 


54 


religious  community  has  a  right  to  form  its  own  discipline;  and  its 
members  are  not  at  liberty  to  disturb  it.  While  they  remain  mem- 
bers of  the  church,  they  have  no  right  to  form,  or  be  members  of 
the  Union  Society."  These  laconic  sentences; — his  communication 
to  J.  R.  Williams,  with  respect  to  their  determination  to  expel  us; 
together  with  the  requisition  of  the  prosecutors  officially  made  to 
us,  by  which  it  was  declared  indispensable  that  we  should  dissolve 
our  connexion  with  the  Union  Society  and  Mutual  Rights,  prepar- 
ed us  to  know  with  certainty,  that  our  views  were  correct,  and  that 
we  had  only  to  choose  between  the  most  disgraceful  submission  to 
their  dictates,  and  expulsion  from  their  fellowship. 

After  hearing  our  protests,  the  prosecutors  were  ready,  without 
any  proper  investigation,  to  turn  over  the  whole  affair,  en  masse, 
charges,  specifications,  and  Mutual  Rights  in  extenso,  three  entire 
volumes  and  part  of  the  fourth,  to  the  committee,  to  carry  home 
with  them,  to  read  at  their  leisure,  to  cogitate  and  to  confer,  until 
they  should  be  ready  to  decide,  whether  we  had  or  had  not  a  right 
to  form  and  be  members  of  the  Union  Society,  or  to  publish  the 
Mutual  Rights:  or  more  properly  to  be  ready  when  called  on,  to 
perform  their  part  in  executing  the  "wholesome  and  sound  disci- 
pline" which  was  intended  to  secure  our  expulsion,  by  an  "unani- 
mous vote,"  even  if  the  most  of  them  should  not  have  found  it 
convenient  to  read  the  Mutual  Rights  at  all. 

We  know  not  when  the  committee  made  their  report.  In  the 
mean  while,  their  other  preparations  were  going  forward.  Dr.  Bond 
had  an  opportunity  to  submit  his  propositions,  as  before  specified. 
And  then  came  doctor  Green,  the  object  of  whose  visit  has  been 
stated.  The  interference  of  these  two  Doctors  proves,  that  they 
greatly  desired  the  destruction  of  the  offensive  institutions,  to  be 
brought  about  entirely  at  our  expense.  If  they  could  have  prevail- 
ed on  us  to  accept  their  terms,  which  would  have  been  a  "surren- 
der at  discretion;"  then  the  prosecution  would  have  been  justified, 
the  rectitude  of  all  their  measures  admitted,  and  in  course,  "their 
responsibilities  would  have  set  very  lightly  upon  them"  And  con- 
sidering how  prolific  their  ingenuity  in  preparing  their  indictment; 
their  charges  so  precise  and  so  fully  embracing  the  objects  they  were 
intended  to  accomplish,  we  are  not  surprised,  that  doctor  Green 
was  employed  to  second  doctor  Bond,  in  his  endeavours  to  per- 
suade us  to  submit,  and  in  the  attempt  at  persuasion,  so  to  manage 
and  conduct  his  correspondence  that  in  the  event  of  a  failure  with 
us,  it  might  constitute  a  part  of  the  Narrative  and  Defence,  and  co- 
operate with  all  the  other  things  which  constitute  that  book,  to 
make  an  impression  on  the  public  mind  unfavorable  to  our  cause. 
They  were  very  desirous,  that  their  proceedings  should  be  thought 
in  accordance  with  l< wholesome  and  sound  discipline"  Reformers, 
however,  were  not  to  be  wheedled  by  their  ingenious  devices,  and 
the  quarterly  meeting  conference  proceeded  to  read  the  garbled  ex- 
tracts; and,  as  was  intended,  condemned  us  "without  a  dissenting 
voice." 

The  following  extract  from  a  copy  of  their  decree,  as  officially 
furnished,  confirms  the  foregoing  views. 


55 


"Resolved,  thirdly,  that  the  Rev.  Samuel  K.  Jennings  be  expel- 
led from  the  Methodist  E.  Church,  unless  he  withdraw,  forthwith, 
from  the  Union  Society,  and  promise  not  to  be  engaged  hereafter,  in 
any  publications  that  inveigh  against  our  discipline  or  government, 
or  speak  evil  of  ministers,"  &c.  A  copy  of  these  resolutions  was 
sent  to  each  of  the  expelled  preachers  and  members:  See  Narra- 
tive and  Defence,  page  29.  It  is  true  the  Mutual  Rights  is  not 
named  in  the  resolution.  This  was  carefully  avoided,  not  only  in 
this,  but  in  all  their  subsequent  papers.  The  work  had  then  been 
officially  condemned,  so  that  the  resolutions  not  only  included  the 
Mutual  Rights,  but  every  other  possible  publication,  intended  to 
find  fault  with  the  discipline  or  the  government  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church. 

The  above  decree  was  soon  followed  by  a  letter  from  the  Rev'd 
James  M.  Hanson,  which,  after  giving  his  views  of  the  trial,  &c. 
concluded  as  follows: — "You  must  therefore,  plainly  perceive,  that 
the  only  ground  on  which  expulsion  from  the  church  can  be  avoid- 
ed, is  an  abandonment  of  the  Union  Society,  with  assurances  that 
you  will  give  no  aid  in  future  to  any  publication  or  measure  calculat- 
ed to  cast  reproach  upon  our  ministers,  or  occasion  breach  of  union 
among  our  members. 

Be  good  enough  then,  my  brother,  to  answer,  in  writing,  the  fol- 
lowing plain  and  simple  questions:  1st.  Will  you  withdraw  forth- 
with from  the  Union  Society?  2d.  Will  you  in  future  withdraw  your 
aid  from  such  publications  and  measures,  as  are  calculated  to  cast 
reproach  upon  our  ministers  and  produce  breach  of  union  among 
our  members?"  [Mutual  Rights  or  any  other  paper  or  book,  or  any 
thing  else  of  whatever  kind,  which  can  promote  reform.*] 

James  M.  Hanson. 

From  the  whole  evidence  it  is  indubitable,  that  in  the  beginning 
of  the  prosecution,  and  in  its  conclusion,  they  had  one  fixed  and  de- 
terminate purpose  to  accomplish,  which  was,  the  destruction  of  the 
Union  Society  and  the  Mutual  Rights.  There  was  no  desire  on 
their  part  to  rectify  our  opinions.  If  we  would  have  agreed  to  the 
demolition  of  those  two  things,  we  might  afterwards  have  called  our- 
selves reformers;  so  said  our  prosecutors;  so  says  the  Narrative  and 
Defence.  But  at  any  event,  those  were  to  be  destroyed.  And  it  is 
now  as  clear  to  our  minds  as  any  other  proposition,  that  the  selec- 
tions were  made,  not  to  review  and  demand  a  correction  of  any 
paper;  but  to  heap  together  in  their  own  way,  the  things  which 
they  could  use  to  the  best  purpose,  in  the  construction  of  the  Nar- 
rative and  Defence,  and  by  it,  make  the  people  believe  we  had  so 
far  outraged  all  order,  that  they  were  warranted  in  expelling  us,  af- 
ter their  own  manner.  And  yet  we  believe  these  men  had  a  zeal 
for  God,  in  all  this  absurd  procedure. 

The  seven  prosecutors,  the  preacher  in  charge,  towards  whom 
we  have  never  felt  any  personal  hostility,  although  he  seems  to 
think  otherwise;  the  local  preachers  who  sat  as  the  committee  of 

*  In  annexing  the  explanation  contained  within  the  brackets,  we  only  wish 
that  the  reader  may  mark  the  comprehension  of  the  resolution. 


56 

inquiry  in  our  cases,  and  the  members  of  the  Quarterly  Meeting 
Conference,  all  seem  to  be  satisfied  in  the  opinion,  that  there  was 
sufficient  evidence  in  the  Mutual  Rights  to  prove  us  guilty  of  hav- 
ing enveighed  against  the  discipline  and  spoken  evil  of  ministers 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  Such  is  the  nature  of  their 
hierarchy,  that  Methodist  ministers  are  unavoidably  identified  with 
their  discipline  and  government.  Hence  when  fault  is  found  with 
any  part  of  their  system  or  its  administration,  a  Methodist,  com- 
monly considers,  not  only  one,  or  a  few,  but  the  whole  body  of  the 
itinerant  ministry  to  be  assailed.  The  zeal  of  these  men  for  the 
honor  of  their  establishment,  regulated  by  the  influence  which  the 
principal  leaders  had  over  them  in  the  transaction,  seemed  to  have 
turned  their  chief  attention  to  the  necessity  of  getting  the  church 
rid  of  the  influence  of  reform.  Hence  their  ingenious  pains  to 
identify  the  evils  of  which  they  complained  with  the  Union  Society, 
and  Mutual  Rights.  They  intended  to  dissolve  the  one  and  suppress 
the  other,  and  so  put  an  end  to  the  investigation:  but  still,  they  felt  it 
necessary,  if  possible,  to  make  the  pubic  believe  that  their  only  ob- 
ject was  to  restrain  or  punish  the  licentiousness  of  the  press;  and 
that  they  had  no  objection  to  a  temperate  investigation  into  the  prin- 
ciples and  practices  of  ecclesiastical  government.  But  we  shall  show 
that  in  their  zeal  for  the  government,  they  forgot  the  proper  design 
of  "wholesome  and  sound  discipline."  That  they  were  so  eager- 
ly intent  upon  the  chase  of  reform  out  of  their  borders,  that  they 
overlooked  the  course  prescribed  by  the  word  of  God,  for  effecting 
the  reformation  of  the  offenders,  and  that  it  was  their  glaring  de- 
parture from  the  rules  of  conduct  by  which  they  ought  to  have  been 
regulated; — their  executive  usurpation  of  legislative  authority,  and 
that  too  intended  to  have  an  ex  post  facto  operation,  that  subject- 
ed us  in  self  defence,  to  the  unavoidable  necessity  of  protesting 
against  their  procedure. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

The  Commencement  of  the  Prosecutions. 

The  prosecution  commenced  with  the  following  citation,  viz: 

Baltimore,  Sept.  8th,  1827. 
"Dear  Sir, — You  are  hereby  informed,  that  charges  have  been 
preferred  against  you,  by  the  following  persons:  J.  Rodgers,  S. 
Harden,  J.  Berry,  I.  N  Toy,  A  Yearley,  G.  Earnest,  and  F.  Israel. 
As  it  is  desirable  for  the  satisfaction  of  all  who  feel  an  interest  in 
the  matter,  that  a  hearing  should  be  had  as  soon  as  practicable,  it  is 
hoped  that  Tuesday  evening  next,  at  7  o'clock,  will  suit  your  con- 
venience. Yours,  respectfully, 

James  M.  Hanson." 


What  a  fearful  aspect  does  this  citation  wear!  A  posse  commi- 
tatus  of  seven  leaders,  stewards,  and  trustees,  all  united  to  give 
their  charges  weight!!  Never  did  the  government  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church  in  Baltimore,  assume  such  a  formidable  ap- 
pearance!!! We  wrote  to  Mr.  Hanson,  requesting  a  copy  of  the 
charges,  which  was  sent  on  Monday  evening,  the  10th  of  the  month. 
The  charges  were  as  follows: 

•*The  Rev.  Samuel  K.  Jennings  is  charged  with  endeavouring  to 
sow  dissentions  in  the  society  or  church,  in  this  station  or  city, 
known  by  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  with  the  violation 
of  that  general  rule  of  the  Discipline  of  the  said  church  or  society, 
which  prohibits  its  members  from  doing  harm;  and  requires  them  to 
avoid  evil  of  every  kind;  and  especially,  with  violating  that  clause 
of  said  general  rule,  which  prohibits  speaking  evil  of  ministers." 

These  charges  exhibit  a  formal  statement  of  "the  evils  of  which 
they  complained,"  and  if  he  was  chargeable  with  the  alleged  of- 
fences, he  was  so  chargeable  as  an  individual,  without  any  implica- 
tion of  the  Union  Society.  The  offences,  so  far  as  they  had  exis- 
tence, were  committed  by  the  publication  of  certain  papers  in  the 
Mutual  Rights,  the  specification  of  which,  was  all  that  was  neces- 
sary or  proper. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

The  proceedings  illegal  in  their  commencement; — in  violation  of  a 
positive  precept  of  our  blessed  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

If  these  general  charges,  "the  evils  of  which  they  complained," 
had  been  accompanied  with  definite  references  to  the  words,  sen- 
tences, paragraphs,  or  sentiments  which  they  deemed  exceptiona- 
ble, as  the  specifications,  without  the  attempt,  sophistically  to 
identify  them  with  the  Union  Society  and  Mutual  Rights,  and  es- 
pecially if  the  two  prosecutors  had  not  made  their  previous  de- 
mand, the  accusation  would  have  had  the  appearance  of  a  personal 
prosecution,  and  we  should  have  been  bound  to  appearand  answer, 
in  the  customary  way.  But  even  under  such  circumstances  we 
should  have  had  great  cause  of  complaint,  because  they  had  not 
proceeded  according  to  the  word  of  God,  which  directs  that  an  at- 
tempt should  first  have  been  made  to  obtain  a  satisfactory  explana- 
tion, in  a  private  and  friendly  manner.  If  any  brother  had  aught 
against  any  one  of  us,  it  was  his  duty  to  have  come  to  such  indi- 
vidual himself  alone.  And  why  himself  alone?  Because  brethren 
are  equal,  and  such  an  interview,  to  do  any  good,  must  take  place 
on  terms  of  equality,  christian  love,  forbearance,  and  all  long  suf- 
fering. And  any  man  who  is  not  furnished  with  these  pre-requisite 
graces,  is  unfit  to  minister  reproof.  Instead  of  regarding  this  rule, 
with  becoming  reference  to  its  divine  authority,  they  came  two 
together  and  made  a  demand,  for  doing  which,  they  had  no  author- 
ity from  the  word  of  God,  or  from  the  book  of  Discipline;  a  de- 
mand, which  shall  be  shewn  in  the  sequel,  they  themselves  have 
admitted  they  had  no  right  to  make. 


58 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

77ie  proceedings  violate  the  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church— form  of  first  Protest. 

We  had  good  cause  of  complaint,  also,  because  they  had  not 
proceeded,  as  the  Discipline  directs.  According  to  the  general 
rules,  upon  which  they  pretended  to  base  their  charges  and  speci- 
fications. "If  there  be  any,  who  habitually  break  any  of  them,  (the 
General  Rules,)  let  it  be  known  unto  them,  who  watch  over  that 
soul,  as  they  who  must  give  an  account.  We  will  admonish  him 
of  the  error  of  his  ways.  We  will  bear  with  him  for  a  season." 
Who  are  they  who  say  this?  The  travelling  preachers.  They  make 
these  promises.  They  have  given  the  pledge,  that  the  preacher  in 
charge,  whoever  he  may  chance  to  be,  in  whatever  circuit  or  sta- 
tion, shall  perform  this  duty.  And  it  is  clear,  that  the  duty  proper- 
ly devolves  on  the  preacher  in  charge,  who  is  appointed  by  the 
bishop  and  conference,  to  watch  over  the  souls  which  pertain  to  his 
pastoral  oversight.  Mr.  Hanson  was  bound  by  the  general  rules, 
if  he  had  been  informed  that  we  had  transgressed  any  of  those 
rules,  to  have  first  admonished  us,  and  then  to  have  borne  with  us 
for  a  season,  before  they  could  have  proceeded  according  to  the 
Discipline,  to  subject  us  to  church  censure.  But  this  was  not  done; 
and  we  shall  shew  in  the  sequel,  that  he  had  already  disqualified 
himself  to  do  his  duty.  After  all  these  glaring  instances  of  default, 
in  their  proceedings,  when  we  appeared  in  obedience  to  the  cita- 
tion, above  stated,  we  were  informed  by  the  prosecutors,  that  they 
"had  nothing  personal  against  Dr.  Jennings;  that  they  entertained 
for  him  the  highest  respect.  But  the  Mutual  Rights,  had  pro- 
duced wranglings,  disputations,  and  divisions."  And  the  members 
of  the  church  "while  they  remained  members,  had  no  right  to  form 
Union  Societies,  or  be  members  of  them."  After  these  declara- 
tions made  by  the  prosecutors,  with  the  charges  and  specifications 
before  us,  we  were  obliged  to  see,  that  the  prosecution  was  not  in- 
tended to  be  personal,  but  to  effect  the  destruction  of  Union  So- 
cieties and  the  Mutual  Rights,  and  that  in  order  to  accomplish  this 
purpose,  they  had  resorted  to  the  device  of  identifying  them  "with 
the  evils  of  which  they  complained."  For  such  a  course  of  pro- 
cedure we  knew  there  was  no  existing  rule  of  Discipline.  And  as 
the  intended  decision,  was  to  have  a  general  effect,  according  to 
their  design  and  expectation  nothing  short  of  an  entire  destruction 
of  reform,  we  entered  our  protest  in  the  following  words: 

"A  church  court  cannot  have  admissible  jurisdiction,  in  any 
case,  the  merits  of  which,  necessarily  involve  questions  and  inter- 
ests of  great  public  importance,  which  it  has  not  the  power  to  dis- 
pose of  or  settle,  and  upon  which,  its  sentence  can  have  no  ade- 
quate effect.  Its  jurisdiction  is,  and  forever  ought  to  be,  confined 
to  cases  of  immorality,  heresy,  and  the  settlement  of  differences 
which  may  chance  to  occur  between  two  or  more  individuals,  on 
account  of  some  personal  altercation  which  such  individuals  are  not 


69 


prepared  to  adjust  by  agreement,  between  themselves.  In  affairs 
of  this  sort,  the  church  has  a  Scriptural  and  common-sense  right  to 
interfere,  because  the  whole  effect  of  her  decisions  in  such  cases  is 
completely  within  the  control  of  her  authority  and  influence.  But 
the  charges  and  specifications  to  which  we  are  called  to  answer,  so 
deeply  involve  the  interests,  rights,  and  privileges  of  thousands,  in 
many  different  places  throughout  the  United  States; — interests,  rights 
and  privileges  of  vast  and  national  importance,  that  in  despite  of 
sophistry,  they  will  be  considered  by  disinterested  judges,  to  con- 
stitute a  case  entirely  new,  and  for  which,  no  adequate  provision  is 
made  in  our  code  of  discipline.  The  general  conference  has  never 
yet  fairly  deliberated  on  the  fundamental  principles  involved  in  it, 
and  therefore,  there  is  no  law  to  regulate  your  proceedings,  or  jus- 
tify your  decision. 

"The  manner  in  which  this  prosecution  has  been  gotten  up,  is 
altogether  new,  and  unknown  to  the  oldest  Methodist  now  living.  A 
catalogue  of  the  names  of  seven,  the  most  important  official  men 
in  the  station,  Stewarts  and  trustees,  men  of  wealth  and  influence, 
in  one  phalanx  of  prosecutors,  might  have  served  to  intimidate  the 
fearful,  or  perplex  the  ignorant,  and  it  may  have  some  affect  upon 
the  minds  of  the  men  appointed  to  act  as  the  committee,  but  it 
does  not  change  the  true  character  of  this  prosecution.  It  carries 
with  it,  prima  facie  evidence,  that  they  themselves  consider  the  case 
new,  and  one  which  requires  new  measures.  It  proves  that  they 
were  at  their  wits'  end  to  bring  forward  their  cause,  dressed  in  a 
garb,  which  might  give  it  the  appearance  of  familiarity; — of  an  old 
acquaintance  of  the  judiciary  of  this  station.  But  a  discerning  com- 
munity, whose  eyes  are  anxiously  turned  upon  these  proceedings, 
will  understand  the  subject,  and  will  sustain  us  in  ouxprotests  against 
such  unheard  of  acts  and  doings — against  the  competency — against 
the  right  of  this  tribunal,  to  try  the  questions  which  are  involved 
in  this  case;  and  if  this  court,  shall  proceed,  notwithstanding  this 
protest,  we  will  consider  it  an  executive  usurpation  of  ex  post  facto 
legislative  authority.  But  we  sincerely  hope,  that  whilst  we  are  as 
yet  at  the  threshold  of  this  undertaking,  brethren  will  reconsi- 
der their  purpose,  dismiss  the  prosecution,  and  not  set  up  a  prece- 
dent, which  of  all  others,  is  the  most  dangerous  to  the  pulic  wel- 
fare and  safety." 


CHAPTER  XX. 

Their  specifications  proved  to  be  sophistical  and  unsupported  by 

Discipline. 

The  correctness  of  the  foregoing  views  will  appear  still  more 
clearly,  on  a  careful  examination  of  the  two  specifications,  which 
were  intended  to  sustain  their  attempt,  to  make  out  the  identifica- 
tion so  necessary,  to  give  to  their  proceedings  the  appearance  of 
legality.    Specification  1st.  "Because  the  said  Samuel  K.  Jen- 


60 


nings,  while  a  member  and  a  local  preacher  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  aforesaid,  did  heretofore  attach  himself  to,  and  be- 
come a  member  of  the  Society,  called  the  Union  Society  of  the  city 
of  Baltimore;  which  Union  Society,  is  in  opposition  to  the  discipline, 
in  whole  or  in  part,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  aforesaid." 

This  specification  is  a  piece  of  scandalous  sophistry.  It  pre- 
supposes the  existence  of  two  rules  of  discipline,  which  had  no 
being.  The  first  supposition  is,  that  the  discipline  prohibits  the 
formation  of  Union  Societies.  The  second  supposition  is,  that 
the  discipline  forbids  the  members,  and  more  particularly  the  local 
preachers,  to  "attach  themselves  to,  or  become  members  of  such 
Union  Societies."  As  this  is  a  point  of  great  importance,  we  will 
be  indulged  in  proceeding  in  a  further  examination  of  it,  with  tech- 
nical exactness.  The  specification,  may  be  considered,  to  contain 
two  syllogisms.  The  first  would  read  thus.  The  discipline  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  prohibits  the  formation  or  existence, 
of  Union  Societies.  This  is  the  major  proposition.  The  minor 
in  course,  would  read  thus:  But  a  Union  Society  has  been  formed 
in  Baltimore.  Then  comes  the  conclusion.  Therefore  the  Union 
Society  in  Baltimore,  is  in  opposition  to  the  discipline  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  We  deny  the  truth  of  the  major 
preposition,  and  demand  the  proof;  the  chapter  and  paragraph,  of 
the  discipline,  which  contains  the  prohibition.  It  is  not  to  be 
found. 

The  second  syllogism  would  read  thus.  The  discipline  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  forbids  the  members,  and  particular- 
ly the  local  preachers  of  that  church,  to  attach  themselves  to,  or 
become  members  of  the  Union  Society.  This  again  is  the  major 
proposition.  Then  comes  the  minor  in  course:  But  "Samuel  K. 
Jennings,  while  a  member  and  local  preacher  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  aforesaid,  did  heretofore,  attach  himself  to,  and 
become  a  member  of  the  society,  called  the  Union  Society  of  the 
city  of  Baltimore,  which  Union  Society  is  in  opposition  to  the  dis- 
cipline," &c.  The  conclusion  is,  therefore;  the  said  Samuel  K. 
Jennings,  has  violated  this  rule  of  discipline.  We  deny  the  truth 
of  the  major  proposition  and  demand  the  proof.  It  cannot  be  pro- 
duced, and  these  prosecutors  have  themselves  admitted  it.  See 
Narrative  and  Defence,  page  28.  "The  committee  with  whom  the 
conference  committee  were  intended  to  negotiate,  were  appointed 
by  the  Union  Society,  a  body  not  recognized  by  our  discipline;  and 
of  whom  the  church  could  demand  nothing.^  With  this  acknow- 
edgement  staring  them  in  the  face,  we  say  again,  this  first  specifi- 
cation is  a  piece  of  scandalous  sophistry,  devised  for  the  special 
purpose,  of  making  out  their  unlawful  and  forced  identification. 

The  prosecutors  must  bear  with  us  a  little,  while  we  exhibit 
them,  at  cross  questions  with  themselves.  In  the  specification,  they 
say,  "The  Union  Society  is  in  opposition  to  the  discipline,  in  whole 
ox  part,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church."  In  the  Narrative  and 
Defence,  they  say  "The  Union  Society  is  a  body  not  recognized  by 
the  discipline."  It  follows  in  course,  then  not  prohibited.  And  yet 
they  seem  persuaded,  that  Union  Societies,  must  be  in  opposition 


Gl 


to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  if  not  in  whole  at  any  event 
inpart.  They  were  like  Peter  in  Dean  Swift's  tale  of  the  tub.  If 
the  necessary  opposition,  could  not  be  established  by  any  known 
and  promulged  rule,  they  could  make  it  out  by  some  rule  of  con- 
struction. It  was  all  in  their  own  hands,  and  they  did  make  it 
cut. 

Let  us  now  try  the  merits  of  the  second  specification,  which 
reads  thus.  "Because  the  said  Samuel  K.  Jennings,  as  a  member 
of  the  said  Union  Society,  directly  or  indirectly,  either  by  pecunia- 
ry contributions  or  his  personal  influence,  aiding,  abetting,  co- 
operating or  assisting  in  the  publication  and  circulation  of  a  work, 
called  the  Mutual  Rights  of  the  ministers  and  members  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  printed  under  the  direction  of  an 
editorial  committee  (of  which  the  said  Samuel  K.  Jennings  is,  or 
lately  was  one)  appointed  by,  or  who  are  members  of  the  Union 
Society  aforesaid,  which  work  or  publication,  called  the  Mutual 
Rights,  &lc.  contains  (among  other  things)  much  that  inveighs 
against  the  discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  aforesaid, 
in  whole  or  in  part,  arid  is  in  direct  opposition  thereto;  and  that 
is  abusive  or  speaks  evil  of  a  part  if  not  of  the  most  of  the  minis- 
ters of  that  church.  The  general  tendency  of  which  work  or  pub- 
lication, has  been,  to  produce  disagreement,  strife,  contention  and 
breach  of  union  among  the  members  of  said  church,  in  this  city 
or  station. 

So  much  of  this  second  verbose  specification,  as  relates  to  per- 
sonal accusations,  we  postpone  for  subsequent  consideration,  and 
confine  ourselves  at  present,  to  the  part  which  is  intended  to  "iden- 
tify the  Mutual  Rights  with  the  evils  of  which  they  complain." 
Here  we  have  another  instance  of  the  same  kind  of  sophistry. 
The  specification  proceeds,  as  if  the  first  had  been  established, 
intending  to  make  the  Union  Society  and  Mutual  Rights,  of- 
fenders in  common  with  "the  said  Samuel  K.  Jennings,"  who 
was  "a  member  of  said  Union  Society."  The  sophistry  of  this 
crafty  device,  consists  in  the  supposed  establishment  of  two 
points  which  were  without  foundation.  It  supposes  the  first 
specification  to  have  been  established,  and  takes  for  granted 
the  existence  of  a  rule  of  discipline,  which  forbids  the  publication 
of  any  book  or  periodical,  in  which  any  essay  or  paper,  shall  ever, 
on  any  account,  be  admitted,  that  shall  be  considered  to  "inveigh 
or  speak  evil  of  ministers."  The  major  of  the  proportion  would 
read  thus:  The  Discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  for- 
bids the  publication  of  any  book  or  periodical,  &c.  as  above. 
Then  the  minor  would  be,  the  Mutual  Rights  is  a  periodical  which 
contains  such  papers.  The  conclusion;  therefore,  the  Mutual 
Rights  is  forbidden  by  the  discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  We  deny  the  truth  of  the  major  and  demand  the  proof. 
But  they  were  so  confident,  that  they  had  fully  succeeded  in  their 
policy,  that  on  their  first  approach,  they  came  to  demand  a  surrender 
of  the  Union  Society  and  Mutual  Rights.  "It  was  indispensa- 
ble that  we  should  dissolve  our  connexion  with  them."  That  is, 
9 


62 


we  must  submit  to  the  heaviest  penalty  of  which  the  case  could 
admit; — the  very  same  penalty,  which  they  required  as  the  satisfac- 
tion for  the  church,  for  the  offences  of  which  they  pronounced 
us  guilty,  and  for  which  they  condemned  us  "by  an  unanimous  vote." 
And  yet  it  is  "strange,  passing  strange,"  that  these  same  men, 
when  more  cool  and  dispassionate,  acknowledge  they  had  no  right 
or  authority,  to  make  any  such  demand.  See  Narrative  and  De- 
fence, page  28.  "How  were  the  committee  to  know,  what  satisfac- 
tion to  require  for  the  church,  of  those,  whom  the  church  had  not  yet 
officially  decidedtobe  guilty  of  any  offence  at  all."  And  yet  before 
trial,  without  any  official  decision,  they  demanded  what  would  have 
been  in  effect,  a  discontinuance  of  all  further  efforts  to  bring  about  re- 
form, a  violation  of  our  engagements  as  editors  of  the  periodical  with 
more  than  fifteen  hundred  subscribers,  and  an  acknowledgement  of  our 
having  transgressed  laws  that  had  no  existence  and  that  the  prosecu- 
tors had  acted  correctly  as  Christians  and  as  Methodists,  in  all  these 
unreasonable  and  unjust  things. 

After  collating  those  demands  with  the  verbose  and  cunningly 
devised  charges  and  specifications,  and  connecting  the  whole  wiih 
the  known  previous  arrangements  to  secure  an  unanimous  vote  for 
our  expulsion,  the  propriety  of  appearing  before  our  accusers,  ex- 
cept for  the  purpose  of  entering  our  protest,  will  be  clear  and  un- 
questionable. 


CHAPTER  XXI. 

Correspondence  with  Mr.  Hanson.  His  letters  prove  that  a  fair  trial 
was  not  intended.  It  was  an  act  of  usurpation.  A  protest  the 
only  proper  defence. 

Whilst  we  were  meditating  as  to  the  proper  course  to  be  pursu- 
ed, a  second  note  was  sent  to  Mr.  Hanson,  of  which  the  following 
is  an  extract, 

 "I  have  to  say  to  you,  that  the  nature  of  my  defence,  will 

make  it  imperiously  necessary  for  me  to  correspond  with  the  several 
writers,  for  the  publication  of  whose  papers,  as  one  of  the  editors 
of  a  periodical  work,  I  am  called  to  give  an  account.  This  cir- 
cumstance, together  with  other  very  important  parts  of  my  intend- 
ed defence,  will  necessarily  require  a  good  deal  of  time.  A  proper 
sense  of  justice  on  the  part  of  the  executive,  therefore,  will  cer- 
tainly protect  me  against  the  violence  of  being  urged  to  too  hasty 
a  hearing. 

I  am,  &c.  S.  K.  J." 

Rev.  James  Hanson. 

The  following  is  an  extract  from  Mr.  Hanson's  reply. 

 "I  am  no  less  astonished,  that  you  should  think  it  all  im- 
portant to  your  intended  defence,  to  have  a  correspondence  with 
the  writers  of  those  pieces,  which  the  brethren,  above  alluded  to, 


63 


have  designated.  The  sentiments  and  expressions  which  are  deem- 
ed exceptionable,  have  been  published  to  the  world,  and  speak  for 
themselves.  With  the  writers  for  the  "Mutual  Rights,"  scattered 
as  they  are  over  the  continent,  the  charges  in  question  have  no 
immediate  concern:  nor  is  it  easy  to  see,  how  these  writers  are  to 
render  you  any  assistance.  They  can  furnish  no  testimony, — they 
can  undo  nothing,  that  you  as  a  member  of  the  editorial  committee 
may  have  done;  and  without  designing  to  flatter,  I  may  be  permitted 
to  say,  they  can  place  the  subject  in  question,  in  no  light,  in  which 
it  has  not  appeared  to  your  mind,  seeing  that  it  has  been  with  you 
a  subject  of  close  and  deep  deliberation  for  several  years.  Under 
these  impressions,  and  desirous,  for  the  good  of  all  concerned,  to 
bring  the  matter  to  as  speedy  an  issue  as  is  consistent  with  a  pro- 
per sense  of  justice,  it  is  deemed  altogether  unadvisable  to  fix 
upon  any  period  for  investigation,  beyond  Monday  17th,  at  7 
o'clock,  P.  M. 

I  am,  &c.  James  M.  Hanson. 

This  second  appointment  allowed  us  five  days  of  grace  to  pre- 
pare for  trial.  But  it  is  evident  from  the  face  of  the  letter,  that 
his  mind  was  already  made  up  upon  the  subject,  and  that  he 
had  no  expectation  of  a  trial  upon  the  merits  of  the  papers; — that 
he  intended  to  make  no  inquiry  after  the  writers  of  them,  nor  to 
afford  any  opportunity  of  obtaining  from  them  any  explanation. 
Besides,  at  the  time  we  had  in  possession  a  copy  of  a  letter  from 
Mr-  Hanson  to  Mr.  Jacobs,  of  Alexandria,  a  short  extract  from 
which  was  read  with  our  protest,  to  prove  that  he  could  not  act 
the  part  of  an  impartial  judge.  We  now  give  a  more  extensive 
extract: 

 "I  was  sorry  my  dear  brother,  extremely  sorry,  to  find  you, 

in  your  communication  to  the  Union  Society,  sometime  since, 
identifying  yourself  with  a  set  of  men,  who  are,  I  have  no  doubt, 
the  most  decided  and  violent  enemies,  that  our  church  has  on 
earth; — men  who  have  spared  no  pains,  and  paid  no  regard  to  any 
of  those  maxims,  which  ought  to  govern  the  conduct  of  christians 
towards  one  another,  in  striving  to  render  the  church  odious  in  the 
eyes  of  mankind.  And  who  are  those  mighty  reformers,  after  all 
the  mighty  dust,  that  has  been  raised?  Why,  a  few  men  who  have 
retired  from  the  hardships  of  an  itinerant  life;  2d,  a  set  of  men,  who 
have  never  contributed  in  any  considerable  degree,  either  to  the 
organization  or  prosperity  of  the  church,  and  whom  their  quarterly 
conferences  would  never  have  recommended  as  proper  persons  to 
be  licensed  to  preach,  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  had  it 
been  known,  they  would  take  the  course  they  have  taken..  3d,  A 
few  travelling  preachers,  some  of  whom  perhaps  have  been  disap- 
pointed, in  not  getting  into  the  General  Conference.  -4th, 

A  few  of  the  laity,  who  by  great  names  and  pretty  sounds,  'lay 
delegation  and  Mutual  Rights'  for  instance,  have  suffered  them- 
selves to  be  led  away,"&>c.  "More  than  two  years  ago,  I  was 

led  to  fear  there  was  corruption  at  the  very  root  of  radicalism,  and 
although  I  had  rather  favoured  some  of  their  views,  I  felt  and  avow- 


64 


ed  the  most  decided  opposition,  to  others.    Since  my  appoint- 
ment to  this  station,  I  have  had  an  opportunity  of  observing  their 
movements  more  closely,  and  making  myself  better  acquainted 
with  their  spirit,  and  I  hope  I  shall  not  offend  my  brother  Jacobs 
(whom  I  yet  sincerely  love)  when  I  tell  him,  that  I  am  disposed 
to  view  the  greater  part  of  them,  as  holding  a  relation  to  the  church, 
to  which  in  justice  and  propriety, — nay  even  in  charity  itself,  they 
are  no  longer  entitled."*    Compare  Mr.  Hanson's  commenting  re- 
ply to  the  note  asking  an  opportunity  to  correspond  with  the  writers 
of  the  exceptionable  papers,  with  this,  his  letter  to  Mr.  Jacobs, 
and  who  will  say  his  judgment  was  not  made  up,  or  that  he  was 
not  disqualified  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  our  cases?    Compare  the 
previous  arrangements  to  secure  "an  unanimous  vote"  with  the 
demand  of  the  two  prosecutors  for  the  destruction  of  the  Union 
Society  and  Mutual  Rights,  and  then  look  at  the  sophistry  of  the 
charges  and  specifications,  and  who  will  doubt  the  predetermina- 
tion of  all  concerned  on  the  side  of  the  government,  to  expel  us, 
if  we  would  not  consent  to  give  up  the  Mutual  Rights  and  Union 
Societies.    In  view  of  the  whole  of  these  matters,  we  considered 
the  prosecution  in  all  its  circumstances,  unlawful,  and  calculated 
to  scandalize  the  church;  we  therefore  met  the  prosecution  with 
a  solemn  protest. 

The  sophistry  of  the  device  for  identifying  the  charges,  &c. 
with  the  Union  Society  and  Mutual  Rights,  has  been  made  evident 
to  common  sense.  Hence  it  appears  that  this  surreptitious  mode 
of  procedure  was  expected  to  supply  the  want  of  a  rule  of  dis- 
cipline to  justify  their  proceedings;  and  in  course,  that  it  was  "an 
executive  usurpation  of  legislative  authority,"  intended  to  have  an 
ex  post  facto  operation.  It  brings  to  our  recollection,  an  occur- 
rence which  took  place  in  one  of  the  upper  counties  of  Virginia, 
about  thirty-eight  years  ago.  A  county-court  lawyer,  who  had  long 
had  great  influence  over  the  court,  was  urging  a  point  in  favour  of  his 
client  with  very  great  earnestness,  when  the  opposite  council  arose 
and  objected  to  the  whole  argument,  on  the  ground,  that  it  was 
not  sustained  by  common  or  statute  law,  or  any  act  of  the  State 
Legislature.  The  zealous  advocate  replied,  "Gentlemen  of  the 
jury,  that  can  make  no  difference  as  to  the  merits  of  this  cause; 

*  The  reader  will  bear  in  mind  the  fact,  that  this  preacher,  after  "thinking 
evil"  of  us  for  more  than  two  years,  and  justifying  his  evil  thoughts  by  a 
closer  observation  for  several  months,  having  become  our  pastor,  and  we 
think,  having  been  placed  over  us  that  he  might  "maintain  wholesome  dis- 
cipline" amongst  us,  but  who  never  in  all  that  time,  had  called  on  any  one 
of  us  in  person  or  addressed  us  by  letter;  this  man  sat  in  judgment  with  his 
court,  to  expel  us  for  "speaking  evil  of  ministers."  He  had  said  of  us,  that 
we  "paid  no  regard  to  any  of  those  maxims  which  ought  to  govern  the  conduct  of 
christians  towards  one  another,  &c.  Was  it  not  evil  speaking  of  us,  to  say  we 
paid  no  regard  to  any  law  of  Christ?  Could  he  have  said  any  thing  more 
comprehensive?  As  to  christian  maxims,  we  were  perfect  out-laws.  Ac- 
cording to  this  mode  of  "divine  expounding."  A  travelling  preacher  may 
say  what  he  pleases,  of  those  under  his  pastoral  care; — being  an  "expounder" 
he  is  not  bound  to  be  a  keeper  of  the  maxims  which  ought  to  govern  the  con- 
duct of  christians  towards  another! !" 


65 


for  if  what  I  have  advanced  is  not  the  law,  it  ought  to  be  the  law, 
and  what  then  is  the  difference?"  So  with  the  prosecutors  in  our 
case:  they  appear  to  have  thought,  if  there  is  no  rule  in  the  Dis- 
cipline of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  which  forbids  the  exist- 
ence of  Union  Societies,  or  the  publication  of  periodicals  favoura- 
ble to  the  work  of  reform,  there  ought  to  be  such  a  rule,  and  what 
was  the  difference? 


CHAPTER  XXII. 

A  fair  trial  under  existing  circumstance,  was  impossible. 

It  is  probable,  that  the  government  party  were  of  opinion  that 
we  entered  our  protests,  because  we  wished  to  evade  a  trial.  This 
mistake,  it  is  hoped,  will  now  be  corrected;  as  a  fair  trial,  under 
the  existing  circumstances  of  the  case,  was  absolutely  impossible. 
For  the  present  we  dismiss  the  consideration  of  the  identifying 
specifications,  and  return  to  the  general  charge  so  far  as  it  admits 
of  personal  application.  We  were  accused  of  speaking  evil  of 
ministers,  in  the  character  of  Editors  of  the  Mutual  Rights.  And 
for  the  proof,  reference  was  made  to  numbers  1,  7,  25,  27,  29,  30, 
32,  33,  34,  36,  and  37,  of  that  periodical. 

Now  suppose  we  had  consented  to  be  tried  as  the  prosecutors 
proposed,  what  plea  could  we  have  entered  in  the  case?  Even 
admitting  that  we  had  been  misguided  in  our  judgment  in  respect 
to  the  character  and  abilities  of  the  writers,  and  had  erred  material- 
ly as  to  the  true  spirit  and  meaning  of  their  papers:  admit  all  this — 
and  would  it  have  been  a  proper  course,  for  us,  the  editors,  to  have 
plead  guilty  to  the  papers  of  those  writers,  without  first  having  writ- 
ten to  them  for  their  views?    Suppose,  again,  the  writers  to  have 
been  such  men  as  Mr.  Snethen,  Mr.  Shinn  and  others,  notorious 
for  integrity  and  truth,  on  whose  judgment  we  could  rely,  and  who 
in  course  were  always  ready  to  answer  for  themselves, — would  it 
have  been  right,  in  view  of  all  these  considerations,  for  us  to  have 
plead  guilty  to  charges  predicated  upon  their  papers?    Would  it 
have  been  proper  for  us  to  have  entered  the  plea  of  justification, 
and  offered  the  truth  in  evidence,  when  we  were  not  permitted  to 
correspond  with  them  on  the  subject  of  their  papers  respectively? 
Every  reasonable  man  will  perceive  what  ought  to  have  been  done, 
had  the  church  court  been  disposed  to  dispense  justice.  The 
prosecutors  were  not  ignorant  of  it.    See  Narrative  and  Defence, 
page  76.    "The  doctor's  defence,  then,  ought  to  have  been  a  very 
different  thing  from  what  we  find  it.    Instead  of  declaiming  on  re- 
form, and  the  iniquity  of  endeavouring  to  prevent  it,  he  should 
have  set  himself  to  prove  the  truth  of  the  allegations,  made  by  him 
and  his  associates,  against  our  Bishops  and  other  ministers.  If  he  had 
shewn  them  to  be  true,  the  charge  of  evil  speaking  could  not  have 
been  sustained,"  &,c.    Then  it  follows,  from  their  shewing,  that 
"we  ought  to  have  set  ourselved  to  prove  the  truth  of  the  allega- 


66 


tions  made  by  our  associates."  And  how  were  we,  how  were  the 
editorial  committee  to  do  this,  without  the  help  of  the  writers? 
We  wrote  to  Mr.  Hanson,  stating,  "that  the  nature  of  our  defence 
will  make  it  imperiously  necessary  for  us  to  correspond  with  the 
several  writers,  for  the  publication  of  whose  papers,  as  editors  of 
a  periodical  work,  me  are  called  to  give  an  account" — adding  that 
this  would  require  time.  Mr.  Hanson,  the  judge  and  ruler  of  the 
court,  replied,  "With  the  writers  for  the  'Mutual  Rights,'  scattered 
as  they  are  over  the  Continent,  the  charges  in  question  have  no  im- 
mediate concern;  nor  is  it  easy  to  see  how  these  writers  are  to  ren- 
der you  any  assistance.  They  can  furnish  no  testimony.  They  can 
undo  nothing  that  you,  as  a  member  of  the  Editorial  committee, 
may  have  done,"  &lc. 

We  were  cited  to  trial  on  the  7th  of  September,  to  appear  on  the 
10th.  The  time  was  extended  to  the  17th,  beyond  which,  said 
Mr.  Hanson,  "it  was  deemed  altogether  unadvisable  to  fix  upon 
the  period  for  investigation. 

Two  points  were  thus  previously  settled  by  the  judge.  First, 
that  in  view  of  the  intended  course  of  proceedings,  the  court  had 
pre-determined  that  the  writers  of  the  papers  had  no  immedi- 
ate concern  with  the  charges  in  question,  And  secondly,  that 
"they  could  furnish  no  testimony."  They  say  we  ought  to  have 
set  ourselves  to  prove  the  truth  of  what  our  associates,"  the  writers, 
had  alleged.  By  whom  were  we  to  prove  it?  Not  by  the  writers, 
said  Mr.  Hanson,  nor  by  any  testimony  that  they  could  have  fur- 
nished. The  "writers  of  the  papers  have  no  immediate  concern 
with  the  charges" — "they  can  furnish  no  testimony."  And  in  or- 
der to  foreclose  the  possibility  of  obtaining  or  offering  any  such 
testimony; — the  only  testimony  of  which  the  case  could  have  ad- 
mitted— he  limitted  the  period  allowed  us  to  prepare  for  our  de- 
fence, to  the  17th — one  week  only — when  he  knew  the  writers 
were  " scattered  over  the  continent." 

With  such  unquestionable  information,  with  respect  to  the  spirit 
and  intention  of  the  prosecution,  thiee  things  "rested  upon  us 
with  the  force  of  moral  obligation." 

1.  We  owed  to  ourselves  sufficient  respect  to  avoid  a  sophistical 
snare,  intended  to  fix  on  us  the  scandal  of  "evil  speaking  "  without 
affording  us  any  possible  means  of  defence  or  escape. 

We  owed  to  Reformers  throughout  the  United  States,  they 
being  absent,  a  refusal  on  our  part  to  acknowledge  them  guilty  of 
evil  speaking,  especially  when  we  were  officially  informed  by  Mr. 
Hanson,  that  no  opportunity  would  be  allowed  us  to  give  them 
notice  of  the  sweeping  charges,  which  were  to  settle  the  principles 
by  which  every  man  of  them  would  be  liable  to  excommunication, 
at  the  nod  of  the  travelling  preachers. 

3.  We  owed  it  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  to  give  them 
an  opportunity  or  an  occasion,  by  the  interposition  of  the  General 
Conference,  to  disavow  and  correct  such  unwarrantable  and  unjust 
proceedings.  And  from  what  has  been  submitted,  our  readers 
cannot  fail  to  perceive  that  the  only  alternative  left  us,  was  to 
enter  our  protest  against  their  surreptitious  attempt  to  make  a  sub- 


8/ 


stitute  for  law; — against  their  unjustifiable  arrangements  to  secure 
our  condemnation  by  an  unanimous  vote; — and  against  the  avow- 
ed prejudice  of  the  preacher  in  charge.  It  must  be  particularly 
clear  that  we  would  have  done  ourselves  and  our  cause,  irreparable 
injustice  to  have  submitted  to  such  a  mock  trial,  when  we  had  cer- 
tain information  that  it  would  terminate  in  our  condemnation,  upon 
a  charge  for  publishing  papers,  as  editors  of  a  periodical,  when  at 
the  same  time  we  were  not  only  not  permitted  to  correspond  with 
the  writers  of  those  papers,  but  were  also  informed  by  the  judge  of 
the  court,  that  they  could  be  of  no  service  to  us; — that  they  could 
afford  us  no  testimony. 

If  our  laymen  had  not  been  placed  under  the  protection  of  the 
protest,  we  now  know  by  the  subsequent  developement  of  facts, 
that  condemnation  awaited  them,  by  "an  unanimous  vote;"  and 
that  nothing  but  the  publication  of  the  protest,  could  have  pre- 
vented an  impression,  almost  universal,  that  they  had  been  righte- 
ously expelled.  If  the  Local  Preachers  had  gone  to  trial,  upon 
the  premises,  it  is  equally  clear,  that  we  would  have  shared  the 
same  fate.  It  is  true,  we  might  have  appealed  to  the  Annual  Con- 
ference: But  what  would  that  have  availed  us?  The  fate  of  Rev. 
D.  B.  Dorsey,  who  had  only  recommended  the  Mutual  Rights,  too 
well  foretold  what  would  have  been  the  decision  of  that  body,  upon 
our  appeal.  The  fate  of  our  memorial  let  us  know  how  they  would 
have  disposed  of  our  case.  Notwithstanding  all  the  glaring  impro- 
prieties which  so  amply  justified  our  protest,  the  Annual  Confer- 
ence decreed,  that  in  as  much  as  we  had  dared  to  protest,  and  had 
not  submitted  to  be  caught  in  their  snare  in  ihe  inferior  judicatories, 
we  were  not  entitled  to  the  poor  privilege  of  uttering  a  complaint, 
much  less  of  presenting  an  appeal.  To  have  countenanced  our 
protest,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Conference,  would  been  "subversive 
of  wholesome  and  sound  discipline."  And  after  the  Annual  Confer- 
ence had  condemned  the  Rev.  D.  B.  Dorsey,  and  the  Quarterly 
Meeting  Conference,  in  the  City  of  Baltimore,  had  condemned  the 
Local  Preachers  by  "an  unanimous  vote,"  would  not  a  reversion  of 
the  sentence  have  been  doubly  "subversive  of  the  wholesome  and 
sound  discipline?"  It  is  obvious  that  an  appeal  to  the  Annual  Con- 
ference would  have  been  worse  than  useless,  because  it  would  have 
given  the  General  Conference  a  better  apology  for  refusing  us  a 
hearing,  if  a  majority  of  that  body  were  disposed  to  enter  into  the 
views  of  the  Annual  Conference. 

The  ultimate  and  chief  design  of  the  protest  was  to  ascertain 
whether  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  a  body,  were  prepared 
to  sustain  the  proceedings  of  the  prosecution,  which  was  gotten 
up  in  Baltimore  station,  and  which,  in  the  Narrative  and  Defence, 
the  prosecutors  say,  was  instituted  "without  any  itinerant  sugges- 
tion or  influence  whatever." 

The  great  impropriety  of  proceeding  against  the  Editors  of  the 
Mutual  Rights,  and  not  against  the  writers  of  the  offensive  papers, 
must  be  obvious;  especially,  as  we  could  neither  plead  guilty,  nor 
justify,  in  reply  to  the  charges.  It  it  equally  obvious,  that  an 
honest  intention  to  do  justice  and  try  the  charges  upon  the  merits 


68 


of  the  publications,  would  have  led  to  the  prosecution  of  the 
writers,  and  not  the  Editors  unless  they  had  refused  to  give  up  the 
writers'  names.  But  the  prosecutors  in  this  case,  included  many 
members  of  the  Union  Society,  who  were  neither  Editors  nor 
writers,  and  they  found  us  all  equally  guilty,  and  all  were  condemn- 
ed for  the  same  things!  They  knew  who  were  some  of  the  prin- 
cipal writers,  and  by  a  proper  application  to  the  committee  might 
have  known  them  all.  They  referred  to  papers  written  by  Mr. 
Snethen;  in  course  they  knew  he  was  one:  why  did  they  not  bring 
him  to  trial?  Or  if  they  were  determined  to  hold  us  implicated 
with  him,  why  did  they  not  give  us  time  to  call  on  him?  He  in- 
formed the  public,  that  if  at  any  time  before  these  trials,  notice 
had  been  given  him,  either  verbally  or  by  letter,  or  in  the  Mutual 
Rights,  no  man  need  to  have  been  prosecuted  or  expelled  on  his 
account.  "I  would,"  said  he,  "have  taken  all  my  burden  on  my 
own  shoulders." — "As  the  case  now  stands,  I  am  not  convinced, 
that  I  have  misstated  any  fact — or  that  I  have  drawn  false  infer- 
ences from  my  premises."    Mutual  Rights,  Vol.  IV.  page  351. 

They  knew  Mr.  Shinn  was  also  one.    Why  did  not  they  prose- 
cute him?    Why  expel  more  than  thirty  members  of  the  Union  So- 
ciety, because  his  papers  were  published  in  the  Mutual  Rights, 
and  permit  him,  unmolested,  to  take  his  seat  in  the  General  Con- 
ference?— They  knew  if  he  were  called  on  to  answer  for  himself, 
or  if  they  gave  us  time  to  write  and  receive  his  answer,  in  explana- 
tion of  his  papers,  that  they  would  be  obliged  to  meet  something 
like  the  defence  which  was  published  in  the  Mutual  Rights,  Vol. 
IV.  page  257 — 287.    Why  did  they  not  demand  the  name  of  Vin- 
dex  and  prosecute  him?    They  knew  that  of  these  men,  each  for 
himself,  could  defend  his  papers,  and  heap  disgrace  upon  any 
that  would  dare  to  bring  him  to  trial.    It  suited  their  purpose  bet- 
ter to  identify  the  evils  of  which  they  complained  with  the  Union 
Society  and  Mutual  Rights." — With  the  writers  for  that  work, 
"scattered  as  they  are  over  the  Continent,  the  charges  in  question," 
said  Mr.  Hanson,  "have  no  immediate  concern."    The  immediate 
concern  of  the  prosecution  was  by  means  of  "the  charges  in  ques- 
tion," supported  by  their  own  comment  on  the  papers,  without 
explanation,  to  ensure  "an  unanimous  vote  for  turning  us  all  out 
of  their  fellowship,  as  the  publishers  and  patrons  of  the  periodical. 
Whether  the  writers  could  justify  or  not,  was  no  part  of  the  ques- 
tion, and  gave  them  "no  immediate  concern."    The  leading  pur- 
pose of  the  prosecution,  was  to  expel  us  all,  unless  we  would 
"withdraaw  forthwith  from  the  Union  Society,  and  promise  not  to 
be  engaged,  hereafter,  in  any  publications  that  inveigh  against  our 
discipline  or  government,"  fyc. 


69 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 

Declaration  that  ice  were  expelled  without  a  trial,    A  memorial  makes 
this  known  to  the  General  Conference. 

Having  given  our  views  of  the  transaction  by  which  so  many 
local  preachers  and  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
were  excommunicated,  with  the  real,  though  covert  intention,  to 
put  a  stop  to  the  work  of  reform,  but  with  the  avowed  and  osten- 
sible intention,  to  bring  to  trial  and  punish  the  editors  and  patrons 
of  the  periodical,  for  "inveighing,"  &c.  and  "speaking  evil  of 
ministers."  We  now  make  our  appeal  to  all  well  informed  chris- 
tian people,  and  to  disinterested  citizens  of  the  United  States 
generally,  in  a  solemn  declaration,  that  our  cause  has  never  yet  been 
tried.  All  who  have  read,  know,  that  we  have  clearly  demon- 
strated, that  a  fair  trial  before  the  church  court  of  Baltimore  in  our 
case,  was  impossible.  In  course  no  man  can  judge  between  our 
accusers  and  us,  unless  he  will  take  the  necessary  pains,  to  read 
the  four  volumes  of  the  Mutual  Rights,  and  make  himself  acquaint- 
ed with  the  nature  and  circumstances  of  the  controversy.  We 
have  already  stated  the  considerations,  which  made  it  "a  duty 
which  rested  upon  us,  with  the  force  of  a  moral  obligation,"  to 
meet  the  prosecution  with  a  solemn  protest.  These  considerations 
were  submitted  in  substance  to  the  General  Conference,  as  the  sub- 
joined memorial  will  shew;  and  we  now  say,  the  General  Confer- 
ence ought  to  have  interfered,  in  some  way,  which  might  have 
served  to  wipe  off  the  scandal  from  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church; — the  scandal  of  having  expelled  so  many  local  preachers, 
and  people  without  a  tr  ial,  and  without  just  cause. 

Our  protests  were  intended  to  open  the  way  for  our  contem- 
plated memorials  to  the  Annual  and  General  Conferences.  And 
although  we  had  no  good  reason  to  expect  any  relief  from  the 
Annual  Conference,  a  memorial  to  that  body  was  considered  ne- 
cessary to  precede  our  application  to  the  General  Conference. 
The  resolution  of  the  Annual  Conference  not  to  "subvert"  Balti- 
morean,  "wholesome  and  sound  discipline,"  was  such  as  we  might 
have  expected,  when  we  knew  their  proceeding  in  the  cases  of  the 
Rev.  D.  B.  Dorsey  and  W.  C.  Pool.  But  we  had  a  right  to  ex- 
pect something  better  from  the  General  Conference.  And  in  view 
of  such  an  expectation,  on  the  17th  April,  1828,  we  wrote  the  fol- 
lowing letter  to  brother  Shinn. 

Baltimore,  April  17th,  1828. 
Dear  Brother, — In  answer  to  your  highly  esteemed  favour,  I  will 
say,  that  a  restitution  of  our  membership,  together  with  such  an 
acknowledgment  of  our  rights  and  privileges,  as  our  friends  may 
consider  a  satisfactory  guarantee  for  our  safety,  and  which  of  course 
will  make  our  return  honourable,  at  the  same  time  that  our  cause 
will  be  saved  and  protected,  would  assuredly  be  very  desirable  to  us 
10 


70 


all.  Not  so  much,  however,  permit  me  to  add,  for  any  personal 
consideration,  as  for  the  reputation  of  Methodism.  Individuals  who 
understand  the  importance  of  the  question  at  issue,  will  be  found 
generally,  perhaps  in  every  instance,  to  have  within  their  reach,  re- 
sources sufficient  for  their  own  personal  comfort. 

The  late  transactions  of  Baltimore,  must  be  considered  by  men 
of  sense,  every  where,  to  be  sufficient  cause  of  scandal,  to  awake 
every  intelligent  Methodist  in  the  United  States.  And  I  am  still 
willing  to  believe,  there  will  be  found  in  the  General  Conference, 
men  not  so  infatuated,  that  they  cannot  perceive,  how  loudly,  a  due 
regard  for  their  own  reputation  calls  upon  them,  to  take  such  mea- 
sures, as  may  be  effectual  to  extenuate  the  offence  which  has  been 
committed  against  our  rights  and  liberties,  and  relieve  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church  from  the  reproaches,  which,  otherwise  must 
inevitably  fall  upon  her. 

With  intention  to  bring  the  subject  before  the  General  Confer- 
ence, a  memorial  will  be  prepared  and  forwarded,  and  a  letter  will 
be  sent  to  some  one  of  our  friends,  which  will  communicate  our 
views,  respecting  any  concessions  which  ought  to  be  admitted  on 
our  part,  &c. 

I  am  respectfully,  your  brother,  <SfC. 

Samuel  K.  Jennings. 

Copy  of  a  Memorial  from  the  expelled  members,  addressed  to  the 
General  Conference,  assembled  in  Pittsburg. 

"To  the  bishops  and  members  of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  in  Conference  assembled. 

Esteemed  Fathers  and  Brethren. 

The  memorial  of  the  undersigned,  late  ministers  and  members 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in  the  city  of  Baltimore,  re- 
spectfully sheweth.  That  for  upwards  of  three  years  last  past,  a  pe- 
riodical called  "The  Mutual  Rights,"  has  been  published  in  said 
city,  under  the  direction  of  a  committee  of  ministers  and  members 
of  said  church,  which  periodical  had  for  its  object,  the  discussion 
of  the  propriety  and  utility  of  introducing  an  equitable  representa- 
tion from  the  ministry  and  membership,  into  the  legislative  depart- 
ment of  said  church. 

Your  memorialists  beg  leave  to  state,  that  most  of  the  prominent 
writers  for  said  periodical,  are  itinerant  ministers  of  the  said  church, 
all  of  whom  we  verily  believe,  are  ardently  attached  to  the  interests 
thereof,  and  whose  only  object,  in  furnishing  contributions  for  said 
periodical,  was  to  obtain  a  well  balanced  form  of  government,  that 
said  church  may  become  the  glory  of  the  present  age,  and  the  just 
admiration  of  posterity. 

Your  memorialists  further  state,  that  no  formal  charge  was  pre- 
ferred against  either  the  authors,  or  editors,  by  any  legal  authorities 
of  the  church,  during  the  aforesaid  period  of  three  years;  but  in  the 
month  of  July  last,  a  select  meeting  of  some  of  the  ministers  and 
members  of  this  station,  was  held  for  a  particular  purpose,  and 
after  that  purpose  had  been  subserved,  a  motion  was  made,  and 


71 


carried,  to  appoint  several  persons,  to  examine  the  Mutual  Rights, 
to  ascertain  if  the  Discipline  had  not  therein  been  violated. 

Your  memorialists  would  represent,  that  about  the  month  of 
September  last,  the  committee  just  referred  to,  called  on  some  five 
or  six  members  of  the  Union  Society,  individually,  and  demanded 
of  each,  an  abandonment  of  the  Union  Society,  and  that  they 
should  withhold  their  aid  from  the  Mutual  Rights,  as  the  exclusive 
terms  on  which  a  prosecution  was  to  be  avoided.  Those  brethren 
on  whom  the  demand  was  made,  did  then,  and  do  now  believe,  that 
the  requisitions  were  such  as  neither  the  word  of  God,  nor  the  dis- 
cipline of  the  church  recognizes  as  terms,  on  which  brethren  in 
Christ  Jesus,  are  to  be  continued  in  church  fellowship;  and  were 
therefore  conscientiously  impelled  to  decline  giving  the  pledges  de< 
manded. 

A  few  days  thereafter,  charges  and  specifications,  based  on  cer- 
tain essays  in  the  Mutual  Rights,  were  handed  by  the  prosecuting 
committee  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hanson,  against  upwards  of  thirty 
members  of  the  Union  Society,  which  were  sent  by  him  to  the  ac- 
cused, with  citations  to  trial,  without  a  prior  visit  from  him  to 
either  of  the  accused,  to  reconcile  the  parties  and  to  prevent  the 
unhappy  collisions  and  exacerbations  of  party  feeling,  consequent 
on  a  church  trial  involving  so  many  individuals;  and  to  prevent 
the  justly  to  be  deprecated  issues,  which  followed. 

The  first  person  cited  for  trial,  was  the  Rev.  Dr.  Jennings,  the 
chairman  of  the  editorial  committee  of  the  periodical.  He  re- 
spectfully requested  of  Mr.  Hanson,  time  to  correspond  with  the 
authors  of  the  pieces,  adduced  as  proof  of  the  charges,  but  this 
was  refused.  He  nevertheless  appeared,  and  made  the  protest,  ac- 
companying this  memorial,  marked  A,  to  which  we  solicit  the  at- 
tention of  the  General  Conference.  The  most  of  the  accused  ap- 
peared, and  entered  their  protests  against  the  glaring  absurdity  of 
the  procedure,  as  well  as  the  prejudiced  character  of  the  commit- 
tee of  trial,  more  particularly  the  latter,  who  had  aided  in  promot- 
ing the  prosecutions,  and  moreover,  had  in  a  publication,  for  which 
they  had  voted  previously,  prejudged  our  cases. 

A  considerable  time  after  the  trial  (so  called)  Mr.  Hanson  sent 
us  a  communication  informing  us,  that  the  committee  had  found  us 
''guilty;"  the  committee  had  reported  that  the  charges  and  speci- 
fications were  "sustained,"  and  in  the  said  communication,  reiter- 
ated the  demand  made  by  the  prosecutors,  as  before  recited,  and 
which  were  afterwards  renewed,  by  doctor  Green.  We  cannot  but 
consider  it  remarkable,  that  such  a  striking  sameness  of  demand 
should  be  made,  at  three  different  periods,  and  by  three  persons. 
Suffice  it  to  say,  that  Mr.  Hanson's  demand  was  declined  on  the 
part  of  the  accused.  A  short  time  after  the  members  were  expell- 
ed, and  the  local  preachers  were  suspended.  The  local  preachers 
determined  to  take  their  trials  at  the  district  conference,  as  provid- 
ed by  the  discipline.  The  district  conference  met,  and  after  being 
organized,  and  ready  for  business,  was  violently  and  illegally  dis- 
solved. Now  as  we  cannot  suppose,  that  the  general  conference 
ever  designed  to  transfer  the  business  of  a  district  conference,  to  a 


72 


quarterly  meeting  conference,  by  such  means  as  were  employed  on 
this  occasion,  and  especially  by  the  votes  of  coloured  preachers, 
in  a  slave  holding  state,  and  without  allowing  the  subject  to  be  dis- 
cussed, we  sincerely  believe  that  the  dissolution  was  illegal  and 
void,  and  that  the  quarterly  conference  had  no  jurisdiction  in  the 
case. 

The  lay  members  obeyed  their  citations,  but  they  did  not  appeal 
for  the  same  reason  which  served  to  make  the  local  preachers  more 
sensible  of  the  injustice  done  them  by  the  unlawful  dissolution  of 
the  district  conference;  which  was,  that  we  all  knew  the  members 
of  thf  quarterly  meeting  conference,  (with  but  very  few  exceptions) 
at  a  meeting  called  for  the  purpose,  had  by  a  vote,  adopted  a  paper 
which  was  published  by  themselves,  in  which  it  was  stated,  that  the 
Mutual  Rights  had  been  rightly  considered  by  the  Baltimore  Con- 
ference, to  be  an  improper  work;  because  in  it  anonymous  writers 
were  permitted  to  defame  the  travelling  preachers,  &,c.  Inasmuch, 
therefore,  as  the  principal  charge  was  for  speaking  evil  of  minis- 
ters, and  the  specifications  referred  to  the  Mutual  Rights,  as  the 
only  evidence  by  which  they  expected  to  sustain  the  charge  and 
specifications;  it  was  a  necessary  conclusion,  that  they  had  alrea- 
dy decided  on  the  facts  (so  called)  in  our  case.  They  considered 
all  the  members  of  the  Union  Society  identified  with  the  excep- 
tionable papers,  and  of  course  we  as  members  of  the  Union  Socie- 
ty, were  made  the  subjects  of  their  denouncement.  An  appeal,  to 
have  been  made  under  such  circumstances,  carried  with  it  such  a 
certain  expectation  of  defeat,  that  our  lay  members  could  not  con- 
sent to  appear  before  the  quarterly  meeting  conference.  More- 
over, it  was  and  is  our  opinion  that  the  subject  in  dispute  was  one 
which  required  special  legislation,  and  after  entering  our  protests, 
we  intended  to  look  to  your  body,  for  an  act  which  would  guaran- 
tee a  better  mode  of  procedure,  should  any  instance  of  this  kind, 
again  occur.  In  the  meantime,  however,  we  were  desirous  of  call- 
ing the  attention  of  the  annual  conference  to  the  illegality  of  the 
proceedings,  and  with  that  view,  sent  up  to  the  conference  the 
memorial  marked  B,  (see  page  327)  and  to  which  that  body  return- 
ed the  document  marked  C.  (see  page  230,)  of  Mutual  Rights. 

If  we  have  erred,  it  should  be  remembered,  that  it  was  at  a  time 
of  great  excitement,  and  under  extraordinary  circumstances.  We 
feel  confident,  that  the  case  was  entirely  nev\r 

Who  ever  before  heard  of  the  organization  of  a  prosecution 
committee  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  consisting  of  seven 
persons?  When  was  there  ever  a  convocation  of  members  of  the 
church,  for  the  purpose  of  arraying  themselves  as  prosecutors, 
against  another  party  of  the  church? 

The  measure  was  so  new,  and  so  inconsistent  with  all  our  for- 
mer acquaintance  with  Methodism,  that  we  were  apprehensive,  our 
prosecutors  had  been  encouraged  thereto,  by  some  persons  in  high 
authority  in  the  church. 

When  attacked  in  such  a  party  manner,  and  under  such  new  and 
fearful  circumstances,  we  telt  obliged  to  protest,  and  to  publish  our 
protest,  that  our  friends  and  the  public  might  know  the  highly  im- 


7  J 


proper  course  of  procedure  against  us;  that  we  might  not  be  injur- 
ed to  any  very  great  extent,  by  the  varied  attempts  of  our  prose- 
cutors and  their  friends,  until  a  fair  and  full  investigation  could  be 
had. 

We  are  much  surprised  at  the  resolutions  of  the  Baltimore  An- 
nual  Conference.  In  the  first  resolution  the  utmost  scrupulosity 
as  to  the  formalities  of  the  discipline,  is  tenaciously  observed  in 
every  point  regarding  the  expelled,  whilst  not  a  word  is  said  re- 
specting the  informalities,  by  which  the  prosecutions  were  charac- 
terised. 

It  appears  from  the  second  resolution,  that  a  departure  from 
the  course  prescribed,  would  be  subversive  of  "wholesome  disci- 
pline." That  there  is  no  general  rule  without  some  exception, 
is  generally  admitted,  and  we  believe  our  cases  furnish  such  an 
exception;  having  been  prosecuted  by  those  who  had  condemn- 
ed us;  and  tried  by  those  who  had  found  us  guilty  and  pub- 
lished it  to  the  world,  previously  to  their  sitting  on  our  trials, 
and  acknowledging  that  they  had  so  acted,  even  on  the  trials! 
Surely  this  was  a  course  of  things  extremely  out  of  place  and  char- 
acter. In  the  fourth  resolution,  they  state,  that  "if  the  local  preach- 
ers, on  the  dissolution  of  the  conference,  had  appeared  before  the 
quarterly  meeting  conference,  and  objected  to  the  jurisdiction  of 
that  body,  in  such  case,  on  an  appeal,  this  conference  would  have 
fully  considered  and  decided  on  the  whole  subject."  This  is  a  most 
surprising  statement,  in  view  of  all  the  facts  in  the  case.  The  local 
preachers  did  draw  up  a  formal  protest  against  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  quarterly  meeting  conference,  to  try  their  cases,  which  they 
sent  in,  to  the  presiding  elder,  (the  Rev.  Joseph  Frye,)  as  the  doc- 
ument marked  D,  fully  proves.  With  the  most  incontestible  evi- 
dence before  the  local  preachers,  that  a  large  majority  of  the  quar- 
terly meeting  conference  had  prejudged  their  cases;  that  it  was  a 
party  prosecution;  that  the  presiding  elder  by  favouring  the  disso- 
lution of  the  district  conference,  was  also  on  the  side  of  the  prose- 
tion  party;  that  Mr.  Hanson  was  also  on  the  same  side;  that  the 
committee  were  also  of  the  party;  that  almost  all  the  members  of 
the  quarterly  meeting  conference  had  voted  them  "enemies  to 
Methodism,"  &c.  in  view  of  these  facts,  they  declined  a  person- 
al attendance,  trusting  that  the  annual  conference  would  defend 
them  against  such  oppression;  or  that  if  the  annual  conference 
should  sanction  such  procedure,  the  general  conference  would  ren- 
der them  an  impartial  hearing,  and  decide  only  on  the  merits  of  the 
facts,  and  principles  involved  in  the  case. 

Finally,  brethren,  your  memorialists  respectfully  represent  to  the 
general  conference,  that  as  we  have  been  expelled  from  the  church, 
contrary,  as  we  believe,  to  Scripture  and  Discipline,  and  which  ex- 
pulsion has  been,  and  still  is  painful  to  our  hearts,  we  do  hereby 
request  your  highly  respected  body  to  take  such  measures,  as  in 
your  wisdom,  shall  restore  us  to  the  church  of  our  former  fellow- 
ship, and  receive  with  us  those  who  have  withdrawn  on  our  ac- 
count, on  principles  which  shall  secure  to  us  and  the  church,  the 
liberty  of  speech  and  of  the  press,  without  sanctioning  the  licen- 


74 


tiousness  of  either;  and  may  the  great  Head  of  the  church  have 
you  in  his  holy  keeping,  and  direct  you  in  all  your  deliberations,  to 
the  praise  of  His  glory,  is  the  prayer  of  your  memorialists." 

The  reader  will  perceive  that  a  reference  is  requested  to  a  copy 
of  our  protest  marked  A.  That  document  in  addition  to  the  other 
references  served  to  make  the  memorial  so  completely  develope 
the  whole  business,  that  the  Conference  were  obliged  to  understand 
the  iniquity  of  the  prosecution. 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 

Some  strictures  on  the  proceedings  of  the  General  Conference,  in  view 
of  the  memorial. 

How  obvious  it  is,  that  the  General  Conference  ought  to  have 
interfered  and  shewn  a  disposition  to  wipe  off  the  scandal  of  hav- 
ing expelled  so  many  local  preachers  and  lay  members  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  without  a  trial  and  without  a  just  cause! 
Had  they  been  the  representatives  of  the  Methodist  people,  and  in 
course  accountable  to  the  people  for  their  legislative  and  judicial 
acts,  they  would  have  felt  the  necessity  of  evincing  their  disappro- 
bation of  such  arbitrary  proceedings.  So  far  from  feeling  any  such 
accountability,  they  considered  themselves  bound  in  conscience  to 
assert  their  high  prerogatives,  as  of  divine  appointment;  and  to 
make  plain  their  conscientious  determination  to  maintain  the  whole 
amount  of  their  power; — saying  in  terms,  that  cannot  be  misun- 
derstood, that  they  can  be  "cordially  happy  in  the  society  and  fel- 
lowship" of  such  only,  as  are  willing  to  be  peacefully  submissive  to 
their  absolute  authority,  and  that  to  those  who  may  be  dissatisfied 
with  holding  such  obedient  relation  to  the  church,  as  they  the  "di- 
vinely authorized  expounders  of  moral  discipline,"  &c.  shall  have 
prescribed,  there  remains  no  alternative,  but  to  exercise  "the  right 
of  ecclesiastical  expatriation."  A  little  attention  to  the  report  of 
the  committee  on  petitions  and  memorials,  as  adopted  by  the  Gen- 
eral Conference  at  Pittsburg,  will  confirm  this  statement. 

The  first  three  paragraphs  bring  the  reader  to  the  conclusion, 
that  in  the  estimation  of  the  conference,  "the  claim  of  right  to  the 
representation  contended  for,"  the  claimants  are  not  entitled  to  de- 
mand, because  the  conference  "believe  it  neither  has  been  or  can 
be  shown,"  that  the  claimants  have  such  a  right,  either  natural  or 
acquired.  It  can  be  no  cause  of  surprise,  after  this,  to  find  in  the 
seventh  paragraph,  a  declaration,  that  the  itinerant  preachers  have 
been  very  condescending  and  gracious,  in  dispensing  a  participa- 
tion of  "privileges  and  advantages  to  the  local  preachers;"  and  that 
they  regret  to  perceive,  that  their  bounty  in  the  "addition  of  privilege 
to  privilege,"  should  be  met  with  the  ungrateful  return  from  some 
of  the  local  preachers;  not  only  "of  claiming  more  and  more,"  but 
at  length  of  "demanding  them  as  matters  of  positive  and  inherent 
right."    They  felt  this  regret  the  more  intensely,  because  in  their 


75 


opinion,  the  introduction  of  local  men  into  the  councils  of  the 
church,  could  not  fail  to  endanger  their  itinerant  economy. 

Their  sincerity  in  deciding  against  the  right  of  laymen  or  local 
preachers  to  representation,  is  argued  in  the  ninth  paragraph.  "It 
cannot  but  be  well  known,  that  our  present  economy  bears  with  a 
peculiar  severity  upon  the  personal  and  domestic  comforts  of  the 
itinerant  ministry.  And  even  an  enemy  could  scarcely  fail  to  ad- 
mit, that,  were  we  really  ambitious  of  worldly  interests,  and  of  per- 
sonal ease  and  domestic  comfort,  we  might  have  the  discernment 
to  perceive,  that  the  surest  way  to  effect  these  objects  would  be  to 
effect  the  changes  proposed,  and  thus  to  prepare  the  way  for  the 
enjoyment  of  similar  advantages,  in  these  respects,  to  those  now 
enjoyed  by  the  settled  ministry  of  other  churches.  And,  indeed, 
were  such  a  change  effected,  and  should  we  even  still  continue 
itinerant,  considering  that,  from  the  necessity  of  things,  our  wealthy 
and  liberal  friends  would  most  generally  be  selected  as  dele- 
gates, we  do  not  doubt  that  the  change  proposed,  might  probably 
tend  to  increase  our  temporal  comforts.  We  think  this  the  more 
probable,  because,  if  such  a  direct  representation  of  the  laity  were 
admitted,  their  constituents  might  ultimately  become  obliged,  by 
some  positive  provisions,  fully  to  make  up  and  pay  whatever  allow- 
ances might  be  made  to  the  ministry;  which  allowances,  in  this 
event,  might  also  more  properly  acquire  the  nature  of  a  civil  obli- 
gation. At  present  our  economy  knows  no  such  thing."  In  the 
opinion  of  the  conference  their  motives  soar  far  above  considera- 
tions of  personal  interest,  and  the  determination  to  hold  their  ab- 
solute power,  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  an  expression  of  obe- 
dience to  the  great  Head  of  the  church,  by  whose  divine  authority 
they  hold  and  exercise  that  power.  "The  great  Head  of  the 
church,"  say  they,  "himself  has  imposed  on  us  the  duty  of  preach- 
ing the  gospel,  of  administering  its  ordinances,  and  of  maintaining 
its  moral  discipline  among  those,  over  whom  the  Holy  Ghost,  in 
these  respects,  has  made  us  overseers.  Of  these,  also,  viz.  of  gos- 
pel doctrines,  ordinances,  and  moral  discipline,  we  do  believe, 
that  the  divinely  instituted  ministry  are  the  divinely  authorized  ex- 
pounders; and  that  the  duty  of  maintaining  them  in  their  purity, 
and  of  not  permitting  our  ministrations,  in  these  respects,  to  be 
authoritatively  controlled  by  others,  does  rest  upon  us  with  the  force 
of  a  moral  obligation;  in  the  due  discharge  of  which  our  consciences 
are  involved.  It  is  on  this  ground,  that  we  resist  the  temptations 
of  temporal  advantage  which  the  proposed  changes  hold  out  to  us." 
So  that  it  is  made  as  clear  as  a  sunbeam,  if  the  travelling  ministers 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  were  to  admit  of  a  lay  delega- 
tion, it  would  be  on  their  part,  a  very  sinful  act.  They  are  the 
divinely  authorized  expounders  of  the  moral  discipline  of  the 
church.  They  have  expounded  it  accordingly;  and  the  exposition 
is  published  in  their  book  of  Discipline.  The  book  of  Discipline, 
therefore,  reports  what  is  the  result  of  their  conscientious  expound- 
ing, for  the  space  of  forty  years.  And  when  we  compare  this  fact 
with  the  restrictive  rules,  we  may  safely  conclude,  that  their  re- 
solution to  hold  fast  their  absolute  power,  is  approximating  to  the 


76 


principles  which  made  the  laws  of  the  Medes  and  Persians  unal- 
terable. 

In  judging  of  the  course  pursued  by  the  General  Conference  in 
respect  to  the  expelled  members,  we  must  bear  in  mind  the  con- 
scientious difficulties  which  stood  in  the  way  of  a  restoration  of  the 
Reformers.  Our  memorial  called  upon  them  to  replace  men  who 
had  declared  a  steady  purpose  to  insist  on  an  equitable  represen- 
tation of  the  church,  in  its  legislative  department; — of  men,  who 
in  like  manner,  were  bound  in  conscience,  to  assert  their  right  to 
such  representation.  By  an  act  of  the  laymen  of  the  city  of  Bal- 
timore, said  to  have  been  performed  by  themselves,  "without  any 
itinerant  suggestion  or  influence  whatever,"  the  most  troublesome 
friends  of  the  representative  principle  had  been  expelled,  and  it 
would  have  cost  the  preachers  a  good  deal  of  self-denial,  to  undo 
an  act,  which  seemed  to  promise  so  much,  and  which  so  well  ac- 
corded to  the  dictates  of  their  consciences  on  the  score  of  moral 
discipline.  Our  memorial  called  upon  them  to  rescind  proceed- 
ings, which  the  Baltimore  Annual  Conference  had  approved,  as 
being  consistent  with  wholesome  and  sound  discipline;  in  course  as 
having  the  sanction  of  so  many  who  were  "divinely  authorized  ex- 
pounders." To  have  rescinded  their  decision,  would  have  effected 
their  reputation,  as  expounders  of  discipline.  Our  expulsion  had 
been  effected  with  the  previous  knowledge  and  approbation  of 
Bishop  George,  and  probably  of  the  other  Bishops  *  The  seven 
prosecutors  and  Mr.  Hanson,  and  all  their  coadjutors,  had  done 
much  in  expectation  to  please  the  bishops  and  Conference.  They 
probably  had  been  assured  that  their  proceedings  would  be  sus- 
tained. 

It  was  supposed  too,  that  they  had  managed  to  bring  about  our 
expulsion,  so  as  to  conceal  their  purpose  of  ridding  the  church  of 
the  friends  of  representation,  and  by  an  unanimous  vote,  condemn- 
ed us  for  speaking  evil  of  ministers,  and  inveighing  against  the 
discipline.  After  their  manner  they  had  prepared  themselves  to 
say,  it  is  of  no  consequence  as  it  respects  the  accused,  what  may 
be  the  determination  of  the  General  Conference,  in  relation  to  lay 
and  local  representation.  "It  is  not  for  advocating  such  a  repre- 
sentation that  we  complained  of  the  accused,  but  for  the  means 
they  have  employed  to  effect  their  object;  if  such  indeed  was  their 
only  object.  Whatever  else  the  General  Conference  may  do,  we 
are  sure  they  will  not  acknoweldge  the  right  of  professing  Chris- 
tians to  abuse  and  defame  one  another;  and  if,  as  some  expect, 
they  should  make  some  rule  of  discipline,  calculated  more  effectu- 
ally to  preserve  the  peace  of  the  church,  it  is  obvious,  that  such  a 
rule  could  not  have  any  retrospective  operation; — any  'ex  post 
facto*  application,  and  therefore  could  not  be  brought  to  bear  on 
the  circumstances  under  which  the  church  now  suffers.  The  peace 
of  the  church  must  be  preserved,  and  the  character  of  her  minis- 
ters and  members  protected  from  unjust  aspersions,  whatever  he  the 

*  This  fact  is  confirmed  by  other  means  than  the  former  reference  to  it, 
when  in  view  of  the  District  Conference. 


77 


fate  of  the  much  agitated  question  of  reform."  (See  Narrative  and 
Defence,  page  9.)  But  the  friends  of  representation,  expected 
their  rights  and  privileges  to  be  protected  also.  Vain  expectation! 
The  Conference  did  not  believe  their  claim  had  been,  or  could  be 
sustained; — that  they  had  either  a  "natural  or  acquired  right1'  to  be 
represented.  The  preachers  were  bound  in  conscience  to  oppose 
representation.  Therefore,  the  Reformers  had  no  place  in  the  con- 
scientious obligations  of  the  General  Conference; — in  the  estima- 
tion of  the  Baltimore  Annual  Conference,  they  had  no  right  to  com- 
plain, much  less  to  appeal. 


CHAPTER  XXV. 

It  is  proved  beyond  the  possibility  of  a  doubt,  that  there  was  no  mis- 
understanding between  the  Agent  or  the  prosecutors,  and  the  Gene- 
ral Conference.    The  Agency,  in  course  is  established. 

If  the  Narrative  and  Defence  gives  a  correct  account  of  the  mat- 
ter; if  the  prosecutors,  or  the  Agent,  possessed  all  the  information 
which  is  implied  in  the  above  prediction  of  what  the  General  Con- 
ference would  do,  and  of  which  we  have  no  doubt,  then  it  follows, 
that  the  General  Conference  could  not  have  reversed  the  decision 
of  the  Quarterly  Meeting  Conference  of  Baltimore.  On  the  con- 
trary, they  were  obliged  to  protect  the  reputation  of  Mr.  Hanson, 
the  Agent,  the  prosecutors  and  all  concerned  in  our  expulsion. — 
These  were  to  be  protected,  "whatever  might  be  the  fate  of  the 
much  agitated  question  of  reform." 

That  the  General  Conference  did  pursue  this  course,  and  there- 
fore, that  the  prediction  of  the  prosecutors  was  not  the  work  of 
chance,  will  appear  from  an  examination  of  the  terms  or  condi- 
tions, on  which  they  were  willing  to  permit  some  of  the  expelled 
brethren  to  return. 

"Whereas,  an  unhappy  excitement  has  existed  in  some  parts  of 
our  work,  in  consequence  of  the  organization  of  what  have  been 
called  Union  Societies,  for  purposes  and  under  regulations,  believ- 
ed to  be  inconsistent  with  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  church; 
and  in  relation  to  the  character  of  much  of  the  matter  contained 
in  a  certain  periodical  publication,  called  "Mutual  Rights,"  in  re- 
gard to  which,  certain  expulsions  from  the  church  have  taken  place: 
and  whereas,  this  General  Conference  indulges  a  hope,  that  a  mu- 
tual desire  may  exist,  for  conciliation  and  peace;  and  is  desirous 
of  leaving  open  a  way  for  the  accomplishment  of  so  desirable  an 
object,  on  safe  and  equitable  principles;  therefore  resolved: 

"1.  That  in  view  of  the  premises,  and  in  the  earnest  hope,  that 
this  measure  may  tend  to  promote  this  object,  this  General  Confer- 
ence affectionately  advises,  that  no  further  proceedings  may  be  had 
in  any  part  of  our  work,  against  any  minister  or  member  of  the 
11 


7S 


Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  on  account  of  any  past  agency  or 
concern  in  relation  to  the  above  named  periodical  (Mutual  Rights,) 
or  in  relation  to  any  Union  Society  as  above  mentioned." 

This  preamble  with  the  first  resolution,  unequivocally  expresses 
the  approbation  of  the  General  Conference,  in  respect  to  the  Balti- 
more proceedings.  The  proceedings  and  the  alleged  reasons  for 
our  expulsion,  are  all  recognized  and  approved.  And  the  "affec- 
tionate advice"  that  no  further  proceedings  of  the  same  kind  may 
be  had,  proves,  not  only  that  what  had  been  done,  was  right,  in 
their  estimation,  but  that  the  conference  wished  to  have  it  under- 
stood, that  they  had  neither  the  power  nor  the  inclination  to  inter- 
dict a  repetition  of  the  same,  whenever,  or  wherever  any  company 
of  prosecutors  might  see  fit,  to  imitate  those  of  Baltimore.  And  in 
fact,  a  short  time  after  the  rising  of  the  conference,  similar  expul- 
sions were  practised,  in  Cincinnati,  in  Lynchburg,  and  in  other 
places.  So  that,  whether  the  lay  brethren  in  Baltimore  acted  with 
or  without  "any  itinerant  suggestion  or  influence  whatever,"  the 
General  Conference  stamped  the  proceedings,  with  their  most 
hearty  approbation. 

"2.  If  any  persons  expelled  as  aforesaid,  feel  free  to  con- 
cede, that  publications  have  appeared  in  said  "Mutual  Rights," 
the  nature  and  character  of  which  were  unjustifiably  inflammatory, 
and  do  not  admit  of  vindication;  and  that  others,  though  for  want 
of  proper  information,  or  unintentionally,  have  yet  in  fact,  mis- 
represented individuals  and  facts,  and  that  they  regret  these  things:" 
That  is  to  say,  if  the  preachers  and  members  who  were  expelled 
under  the  circumstances,  and  on  account  of  the  charges  and  spe- 
cifications, as  heretofore  examined  and  exposed,  can  after  all,  go 
forward  to  Mr.  Hanson  and  the  prosecutors,  and  confess  them- 
selves guilty  of  the  charges,  and  report  themselves  penitent, 
then,  &c. 

Moreover,  "If  it  be  voluntarily  agreed  also,  that  the  Union  So- 
cieties above  alluded  to,  shall  be  abolished,  and  the  periodical 
called  the  Mutual  Rights,  be  discontinued  at  the  close  of  the  cur- 
rent volume,  which  shall  be  completed  with  due  respect  to  the 
conciliatory  and  pacific  design  of  this  arrangement:"  That  is,  if 
the  Reformers  on  all  hands,  will  agree  to  surrender  the  only  effec- 
tive means  which  they  possess  for  maintaining  their  right  to  repre- 
sentation; in  other  words,  if  they  will  agree,  without  reserve,  to 
give  up  their  cause,  altogether;  "then  this  General  Conference 
does  hereby  give  authority  for  the  restoration  to  their  ministry  or 
membership,  respectively,  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  of 
any  person  or  persons  so  expelled,  as  aforesaid:"  That  is,  until  the 
Reformers  shall  first  have  thus  humbled  and  disarmed  themselves, 
to  their  own  perpetual  disgrace,  and  to  the  entire  exculpa- 
tion and  consequent  honour  of  the  Baltimore  station  and  the 
arbitrary  ecclesiastical  power  under  which  they  acted,  in  view  of 
further  proceedings,  the  conference  affectionately  advises,  that  they 
be  suspended.  But  when  the  work  of  reform  shall  have  been  de- 
stroyed, the  conference  "gives  authority  for  the  restoration  to  their 
ministry  or  membership;  provided  the  arrangement  shall  be  mu- 


79 


tually  assented  to,  by  any  individual  or  individuals,  so  expelled, 
and  also  by  the  Quarterly  Meeting  Conference,  and  the  minister  or 
preacher  having  the  charge  in  any  circuit  or  station,  within  which 
any  such  expulsion  may  have  taken  place."  This  provisory  clause 
was  calculated  to  prevent  every  one  who  had  been  expelled,  from 
making  the  attempt,  if  they  had  felt  ever  so  desirous  to  do  so. 
And  its  conditions  render  it  certain,  that  the  General  Conference 
intended  to  put  it  altogether  in  the  power  of  the  preacher  having 
charge,  &>c.  to  reject  any  individuals  who  might  have  made  them- 
selves offensive.  And  should  any  one  or  more  have  happened 
to  be  successful,  through  sufficient  confession  and  expression  of 
regret,  to  move  the  commiseration  of  the  preacher  in  charge,  still, 
if  those  good  people,  so  loyal  that  they  expelled  us  "without  any 
itinerant  suggestion  or  influence  whatever,"  should  have  thought  the 
preacher  might  have  been  too  compassionate  toAvards  any,  they 
had  power  to  interpose  and  forbid  his  lenity.  Having  without 
law,  expelled  us  in  our  absence,  and  received  the  commendation 
of  the  Annual  and  General  Conferences,  how  much  more  deserv- 
ing they  would  have  been,  to  have  helped  the  consciences  of  the 
travelling  preachers,  by  guarding  their  absolute  power  against  a 
possible  subsequent  interruption; — by  excluding  any  that  they 
might  have  feared,  would  at  some  future  time  indulge  their  "rest- 
less spirits,"  or  give  way  to  their  feelings  of  "disaffection."  We 
hesitate  not  to  say,  that  any  body  of  men  rightly  understanding 
what  are  the  perceptions  and  emotions  which  constitute  honourable 
feelings,  would  never  have  made  such  terms,  because  they  would 
have  known,  that  no  man  of  just  pretensions  to  dignity,  would  ever 
accede  to  them.  And  so  far  from  considering  them  expressive  of 
a  Christian  disposition  to  "conciliate,"  we  have  always  viewed 
them  as  the  most  domineering  and  insulting  that  could  have  been 
offered,  by  any  man  or  body  of  men. 

The  preamble  to  the  resolutions  of  the  General  Conference, 
concludes  with,  "and  whereas,  this  General  Conference  indulges 
a  hope,  that  a  mutual  desire  may  exist  for  conciliation  and  peace, 
and  is  desirous  of  leaving  open  a  way  for  the  accomplishment  of  so 
desirable  an  object,  on  safe  and  equitable  principles;  therefore  re- 
solved," &c. 

That  such  a  desire  existed  on  the  part  of  the  Reformers,  is  in 
fact,  too  obvious; — they  gave  stronger  evidence  of  its  existence, 
than  justice  or  propriety  required.  Their  friends  at  Pittsburg  were 
inclined  to  make  concessions  respecting  the  publications  issued 
through  the  Mutual  Rights,  which  implied  too  much;  particularly, 
in  consenting  to  discontinue  the  periodical,  they  went  to  great 
length,  with  the  hope  of  conciliating  the  General  Conference,  and 
obtaining  "peace,  on  safe  and  equitable  principles." 

But  where  is  the  evidence  of  a  disposition  to  reciprocate  this 
desire,  on  the  part  of  the  General  Conference?  The  phrase- 
ology of  the  preamble,  &c.  is  illusive.  Had  the  instrument 
been  worded  according  to  its  real  intention  and  most  obvious 
meaning,  it  would  have  read  thus:  viz.  "Whereas,  the  General 
Conference  indulges  a  hope,  that  the  expelled  and  withdrawn 


80 


members  in  Baltimore  and  elsewhere,  are  inclined  to  conciliate  us 
and  be  at  peace;  and  whereas,  we  also  are  desirous,  that  they  may 
be  permitted  to  follow  this  inclination,  and  therefore  are  willing 
to  leave  open  a  way  for  the  accomplishment  of  an  object,  so  mu- 
tually desirable  to  us  all,  on  principles  which  shall  be  safe  to  us; 
which  shall  give  us  security  against  any  further  disturbance,  in  our 
possession  of  uncontrolled  authority,  and  maintain  to  Mr.  Hanson, 
the  agent,  the  prosecutors,  and  the  Quarterly  Meeting  Conference 
of  Baltimore,  the  high  standing  which  their  late  services  have 
merited,  and  without  which,  no  terms  of  conciliation  can  be  con- 
sidered by  us  to  be  equitable;  therefore,  be  it  resolved,  that  any  in- 
dividuals among  them,  who  can  feel  free  to  go  forward  to  Mr. 
Hanson  and  the  prosecutors,  &c.  and  confess  that  they  have  been 
altogether  in  the  wrong;  that  their  conduct  admits  of  no  vindication; 
that  they  regret  their  evil  doings,  and  are  ready  to  prove  to  the 
church  their  sincerity,  by  discontinuing  their  periodical,  the 
Mutual  Rights,  and  pledging  themselves  that  no  further  attempt 
shall  be  made  in  that  way, — after  having  thus  humbled  themselves, 
such  individuals  may  be  restored  to  their  membership,  if  Mr.  Han- 
son is  willing,  and  the  prosecutors  and  the  Quarterly  Meeting 
Conference  have  no  objection."  For  such  are  the  proposed  terms 
of  "conciliation  and  peace,  on  safe  and  equitable  principles.' '!! 

We  cannot  have  erred  in  our  views  of  this  subject.  Mr.  Emory, 
in  his  remarks,  says,  it  was  the  intention  of  the  Conference  "to 
leave  open  a  door  for  the  restoration  of  the  expelled  persons,  "on 
certain  conditions  by  mutual  consent."  "It  was  never  intended  to 
force  them  upon  the  society  in  Baltimore  without  consent."  The 
word  "mutual"  therefore,  was  to  apply  only  the  act  of  restoration. 

That  is,  any  individual  Reformer,  desirous  to  be  restored,  must 
make  the  prescribed  concessions  in  proof  of  his  desire  to  be  at 
peace.  But  this  alone  would  not  do.  Mr.  Hanson,  &lc.  in  Balti- 
more, must  also  "mutually"  consent  to  his  restoration.  This  was 
necessary  to  make  the  restoration  equitable.  This  same  illusive 
word  "mutual"  was  applied  by  Mr.  Emory  in  his  "remarks"  to 
another  subject.  "The  General  Conference  proposed,  that  by  mu- 
tual consent,  no  periodical  publication,  to  be  devoted  to  the  exist- 
ing controversy,  should  be  carried  on  by  either  side."  This  was 
a  mutuality  with  a  vengeance  to  Reformers,  intended  too,  at  the 
same  time,  to  wear  the  appearance  of  mutual  pacification,  on  terms 
mutually  safe  and  equitable!!  Suppose  no  periodical  to  be  devoted 
to  the  existing  controversy,  to  have  been  carried  on  by  the  Me- 
thodist Episcopal  Church.  This  was  precisely  what  they  intended, 
and  wished  above  all  things  to  bring  about,  provided  Reformers 
would  be  as  silent  on  the  subject,  as  the  General  Conference  were 
willing  to  be.  And  how  would  the  cause  of  reform  have  been  affect- 
ed by  such  a  measure?  Nothing  could  have  been  so  fatal.  And 
Mr.  Emory  and  the  Conference  understood  well  the  inevitable  re- 
sult. "The  object,"  says  Mr.  Emory,  "was  to  lay  a  ground  for  a 
sincere  re-union,  in  affection  and  good  feeling,  as  well  as  in  form; 
which  it  was  believed,  in  the  existing  excitement,  could  not  be 
effected,  if  such  a  periodical  controversy  should  be  continued. 


SI 


Here  we  have  an  admission  of  all  that  we  have  been  labouring  to 
establish,  viz.  That  our  periodical  was  the  "monstrum  horrendum" 
which  gave  the  offence.  That  the  destruction  of  it  was  the  object, 
because  they  knew  they  could  not  resist  its  influence.  That  they 
would  not  have  expelled  us,  after  all  our  "speaking  evil  of  minis- 
ters," had  we  consented  to  give  up  the  periodical;  and  that  having 
succeeded  "without  any  itinerant  suggestion  or  influence  what- 
ever," to  obtain  our  expulsion,  we  could  not  be  permitted  to  re- 
turn, unless  we  would  consent,  first,  to  admit  that  we  were  ex- 
pelled for  having  published  defamatory  papers  in  the  Mutual 
Rights;  and  secondly,  agree  to  give  up  the  controversy  forever. 
It  is  then  an  incontrovertible  truth,  that  the  terms  which  were  per- 
emptorily submitted  by  the  prosecutors,  when  they  sought  their 
"friendly  interview;" — the  terms  which  were  dictated  by  the  agent, 
and  repeated  by  his  co-adjutor,  doctor  Green; — the  terms  again 
held  out  by  Mr.  Hanson,  after  he  and  his  constituted  court,  had 
"defecated"  the  church  as  the  agent  had  proposed; — and  the  terms 
prescribed  by  the  General  Conference,  were  the  same,  with  only  a 
slight  variation  in  the  phraseology  of  each,  and  some  additional 
conditions  appended  to  the  terms  prescribed  by  the  General  Con- 
ference. And  such  identity  of  purpose  proves  the  existence  of 
a  concert. 

But  Mr.  Emory  says,  "It  was  expressly  stated  that,  individuals 
would  be  at  liberty,  even  if  the  above  conciliatory  arrangement 
should  be  mutually  agreed  to,  to  publish  what  they  might  think 
proper,  on  their  individual  reponsibility."  "It  has  been  objected, 
continues  he,  that  this  meant  on  their  individual  peril.  Be  it  so. 
And  so  it  ought  to  be.  And  no  man  should  be  unwilling  to  bear 
his  own  burden."  And  this  was  liberty  to  publish; — but  subject 
to  the  dangers  of  the  gag  law  still !! 


CHAPTER  XXVI. 

The  terms  or  conditions  made  by  the  General  Conference  for  our  return, 
were  deficient  in  probity; — they  are  more  marked  with  cunning  than 
honesty. 

The  foregoing  is  a  faithful  account  of  what  was  required  on  the 
part  of  the  General  Conference,  if  Reformers  wished  to  conciliate 
them  and  Mr.  Hanson,  and  the  prosecutors,  &c. — of  the  brotherly 
conditions  for  u conciliation  and  peace,  on  safe  and  equitable  prin- 
ciples." !! 

The  resolutions  seem  to  propose  an  arrangement,  which  was 
about  to  be  made  between  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as 
one  of  the  parties,  and  the  expelled  and  withdrawn  members  in 
Baltimore  and  elsewhere,  as  the  other  party; — of  an  arrangement 
which  was  to  be  based  "on  safe  and  equitable  principles!!" 
And  now  we  ask  for  the  evidence  of  safety  to  us  or  our  cause? 
Where  do  these  "equitable  principles^  apply  at  all  to  the  case  of 


82 


the  Reformers?  Terms  of  conciliation  and  peace  on  safe  and 
equitable  principles!!  What  insolent  mockery!  What  did  the 
Conference  propose,  for  the  purpose  of  conciliating  the  feelings  of 
Reformers?  What  is  the  meaning  of  the  word  "conciliation?"  It 
is  the  act  of  winning  or  gaining  esteem,  favour  or  affection; — or 
in  general  terms,  it  is  the  act  of  reconciliation.  And  is  there  any 
thing  in  the  resolutions,  intended  to  reconcile  the  Reformers? 
Every  one  must  perceive,  that  the  conditions  of  the  General  Con- 
ference were,  in  some  respects  more  exceptionable  than  those  pro- 
posed by  the  agent,  or  by  Mr.  Hanson  and  the  Quarterly  Meeting 
Conference  of  Baltimore;  and  we  are  compelled  to  believe,  that 
there  were  many  members  of  the  General  Conference,  having 
too  much  understanding,  to  have  entertained  any  expectation  that 
we  would  accede  to  thern.  One  thing  is  most  certain.  They  were 
determined,  if  we  were  restored,  that  our  restoration  should  cost  us 
the  whole  amount  of  the  value  of  our  reputation,  and  of  the  work 
of  reform.  This  was  the  only  mutuality,  the  only  equity  contem- 
plated by  the  General  Conference. 

The  General  Conference  distinctly  understood  the  subject  as  we 
now  represent  it.  Mr.  Emory,  in  his  remarks,  says,  "the  Reform- 
ers wished  to  be  considered  as  the  orTend-ed,  not  the  offend-ing 
party.  And  because  the  General  Conference  thought  otherwise,  it 
is  now  pretended  to  be  considered  a  great  insult.  Their  eye  was 
fixed  more  upon  doing  the  church  service,  by  giving  the  General 
Conference  opportunity  to  wipe  off,  not  the  disgrace  of  the  Re- 
formers, but  the  disgrace  of  the  church."  That  is  the  truth;  and 
the  day  will  come  when  the  honesty  and  propriety  of  the  state- 
ments made  in  the  letter  to  Mr.  Shinn  on  this  subject,  will  be  duly 
appreciated  by  many,  who  now  seem  devoted  to  the  wishes  of  the 
General  Conference.  But  our  views  and  publications,  Mr.  Emory 
says,  have  opened  their  eyes.  "And  so  long,"  says  he,  "as  such 
a  spirit  is  perceived  to  exist,  as  those  gentlemen  continue  to  ex- 
hibit," the  writer,  Mr.  E.  is  as  well  satisfied  with  our  rejection 
of  the  resolutions  for  our  return,  as  we  who  rejected  them, 
can  be.  This  last  was  an  honest  declaration.  The  affair  had 
wound  up  as  they  intended,  unless  we  were  ready  to  sacrifice  our- 
selves and  our  cause  to  conciliate  them.  As  we  had  not  seen  fit 
to  do  this,  they  were  glad  to  be  rid  of  such  troublesome  "gentle- 
men." They  knew  full  well,  if  we  had  been  continued  members 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  with  the  liberty  of  speech  and 
of  the  press,  their  people  would  ultimately  have  demanded  and  ob- 
tained, all  the  important  changes  in  the  form  of  their  church 
government,  for  which  we  had  been  so  arduously  and  disinterest- 
edly labouring.  But  the  report  of  the  General  Conference  says, 
"we  know  that  we  have  been  charged  with  wishing  to  suppress 
free  inquiry,  and  with  denying  to  our  ministers  and  members  the 
liberty  of  speech  and  of  the  press,"- —"the  charge  we  wholly  dis- 
avow."— "The  rule  in  our  discipline,  page  88,  new  edition,  never 
was  intended  to  suppress  such  freedom  of  inquiry,  or  to  deny  such 
liberty  of  speech,  and  of  the  press,  &c. — The  design  of  the  rule 
was,  to  guard  the  peace  and  union  of  the  church,  against  any 


83 


mischievous,  false  brethren,  who  might  be  disposed  to  avail  them- 
selves of  their  place  in  the  bosom  of  the  church,  to  endeavour  to 
sow  dissentions,  by  inveighing  against  our  doctrines  or  discipline, 
in  the  sense  of  unchristian  railing  and  violence.  Any  other  con- 
struction of  it,  we  have  never  sanctioned;  nor  will  we. — It  is  aim- 
ed against  licentiousness,  and  not  against  liberty."  The  commu- 
nity will  judge  between  us  in  respect  to  the  construction  given  it,  in 
our  expulsion.  Mr.  Emory  echoes  the  declarations  made  on  this 
subject  by  the  agent  in  his  Narrative  and  Defence.  He  repeats  the 
unfeeling  resolutions  of  the  Annual  Conference,  and  accuses  us  of 
having  held  the  church  authorities  in  "in  stubborn  and  proud  con- 
tempt"  and  therefore  he  says,  we  now  have  no  right  to  complain. 
It  was  our  intention  when  we  commenced  this  review,  to  try  the 
merits  of  the  Narrative  and  Defence.  It  is  now  sufficiently  clear, 
not  only  that  the  Quarterly  Meeting  Conference,  of  the  Baltimore 
station,  expelled  us,  calculating  on  being  sustained  by  that  work, 
but  that  the  Annual  and  General  Conferences  all  relied  on  it  for 
their  justification.  We  shall  therefore  pass  in  review  the  extracts 
from  the  Mutual  Rights,  as  they  were  published  in  the  Narrative 
and  Defence;  and  then  we  shall  see  the  value  of  the  above  de- 
claration, respecting  the  construction  which  was  given  to  their 
"odious  gag  law"  in  our  case,  and  which  construction  has  now  had 
the  sanction  of  the  General  Conference,  that  is  of  the  whole  Me- 
thodist Episcopal  Church. 


PART  SECOND. 


REVIEW  OF  EXTRACTS  FROM  THE  MUTUAL  RIGHTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Introduction  to  an  examination  of  the  extracts  from  the  Mutual 
Rights; — or  of  the  offensive  papers,  for  the  admission  of  which 
into  our  periodical,  we  were  expelled. 

At  page  34  of  the  Narrative  and  Defence,  under  the  heading 
"Remarks,"  following  their  extract  from  the  constitution  of  the 
Union  Society,  the  prosecutors  state  the  principle,  on  which  they 
held  the  members  of  the  Baltimore  Union  Society,  individually 
responsible  for  the  unfounded  allegations  against  the  characters  of 
their  ministers,  and  the  "abusive  epithets"  so  liberally  bestowed 
upon  them  in  the  Mutual  Rights.  For  publishing  these  "unfound- 
ed allegations  and  abusive  epithets,"  as  they  have  seen  fit  to  call 
them,  we  were  expelled,  by  virtue  of  the  rule  of  discipline,  which 
has  been  entitled  the  "gag  law,"  found  on  page  88,  of  the  new 
edition  of  the  discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  the 
design  of  which  rule,  Mr.  Emory,  in  the  report,  about  the  18th 
paragraph,  says,  was  to  guard  the  peace  and  union  of  the  church 
against  any  mischievous  false  brethren,  who  might  be  disposed  to 
avail  themselves  of  their  place  in  the  bosom  of  the  church  to  en- 
deavour to  sow  dissentions,  by  inveighing  against  our  doctrines  or 
discipline,  in  the  sense  of  unchristian  railing.  "Any  other  con- 
struction Of  it,  WE  HAVE  NEVER  SANCTIONED,  nor  will  We." 

"Our  complaint  against  the  members  of  the  Union  Society,"  says 
Narrative  and  Defence,  page  7,  "is  not  on  account  of  their  opin- 
ions on  the  subject  of  church  government,  nor  for  the  honest  and 
candid  expression  of  their  opinions;  but  for  the  misrepresentation 
of  the  motives  and  conduct  of  our  ministers,  and  for  endeavouring 
to  sow  dissentions  in  the  church,  by  inveighing  against  the  disci- 
pline. Nor  do  we  understand  by  'inveighing'  the  temperate  ex- 
pression of  opinion,  or  calm  and  dispassionate  argument  in  favour 
of  changing  any  part  of  our  discipline — but  we  understand  it  to 
mean  'vehement  railing,'  abusive  censure  or  reproach,' — The  rinding 
fault  with,  and  proposing  alterations  of,  our  discipline  are  not  con- 
sidered as  violations  of  our  discipline,"  &-c. — "It  is  not  for  being 
reformers  themselves  or  for  endeavouring  to  make  reformers  of 
others,  nor  for  uttering  and  publishing  their  opinions  on  the  subject 
of  reform,  that  we  complain  of  the  members  of  the  Baltimore 
Union  Society,  but  we  complain  that  they  have  employed  against 
their  brethren  in  the  ministry,  and  against  the  discipline  of  the 
church,  the  severest  invectives,  and  the  most  vehement  railing.  They 
12 


86 


have  impugned  the  motives  of  our  venerable  bishops,  and  our  itine- 
rant ministers,  with  unrelenting  severity — and  accused  them  with- 
out the  shadow  of  truth,  with  conduct  which  would  render  men 
odious  in  civil  society,  and  how  much  more  in  the  church  of  God. 
They  represent  them  to  the  world  as  usurpers — as  tyrants  and  de- 
spots, 'lording  it  over  God's  heritage,'  as  exercising  an  arbitrary 
authority,  which  was  at  first  'surreptitiously'  obtained,  and  which 
has  been  perpetuated  by  printing  and  publishing  a  falsehood  in  the 
preface  of  our  book  of  discipline,  and  by  forbidling  the  people  to 
inquire  into  the  truth  of  the  affair.    Nay,  more,  they  are  represent- 
ed as  holding  opinions  and  exercising  a  'domination'  highly  dan- 
gerous to  the  civil  liberties  of  the  country.  As  being  wolves  among 
the  lambs  of  the  flock,  and  wolves  too  who  openly  shew  their 
'teeth  and  claws,'  and  to  cap  the  climax,  nearly  one  hundred  of 
these  ministers,  constituting  the  Baltimore  Annual  Conference,  are 
stigmatized  as  abandoned  tyrants,  'as  performing  a  laboured  deed 
of  hard-earned  infamy.'    From  the  extracts  which  we  shall  give 
from  the  'Mutual  Rights'  it  will  be  shewn,  that  all  this  has  been 
said  of  our  itinerant  ministers,  and  for  these  unjust  accusations,  for 
these  vehement  railings,  we  hold  the  Union  Society  accountable;  be- 
cause they  have  been  uttered  and  published  by  an  editorial  com- 
mittee, elected  by  the  society,  and  who  profess  to  act  as  its  agents, 
and  under  its  supervision  and  control."    See  Narrative  and  De- 
fence, pages  7,  8,  9.    See  a  summary  of  the  charges  or  accu- 
sations, preferred  against  the  reformers  of  Baltimore! !  "Unfound- 
ed allegations; — abusive  epithets; — made  and  uttered  by  'mischiev- 
ous false  brethren,'  who  endeavoured  to  sow  dissentions  by  'unchris- 
tian railing;' — misrepresenting  the  motives  and  conduct  of  their 
ministers;  'vehement  railing,  abusive  censure  or  reproach;'  'the  se- 
verest invectives  and  the  most  vehement  railing;' — 'impugning  the 
motives  of  the  venerable  bishops  and  the  itinerant  ministers  with 
unrelenting  severity;  and  accusing  them  without  a  shadow  of 
truth; — representing  them  as  usurpers,  as  tyrants,  and  despots,  as 
lording  it  over  God's  heritage,  as  exercising  an  arbitrary  authority 
surreptitiously  obtained  and  perpetuated  by  printing  and  publishing  a 
falsehood; — as  holding  opinions  and  exercising  a  domination  highly 
dangerous  to  the  civil  liberties  of  the  country;  as  being  wolves 
among  the  lambs  of  the  flock,  who  shew  their  teeth  and  their 
claws; — abandoned  tyrants,  performing  a  deed  of  hard-earned  in- 
famy."   These  heavy  accusations  they  attempted  to  shew  in  their 
Narrative  and  Defence  were  supported  by  extracts  from  the  Mutual 
Rights.    And  admitting  iheir  comment,  without  correction,  they 
would  seem  in  some  sort  to  have  sustained  them.    If  however,  it 
shall  turn  out  that  their  extracts  are  garbled,  and  much  of  their  com- 
ment gratuitous  and  contrary  to  the  spirit  and  design  of  the  writers, 
from  whieh  their  extracts  were  taken; — if  the  statements  made  in 
the  papers  which  gave  offence  to  the  prosecutors  shall  be  found  to 
have  been  true; — if  an  exposure  of  the  necessity  of  reform,  in  the 
system  or  the  administration  of  the  government  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  or  of  any  instance  of  mal-administration,  or  of 
<he  faults  of  any  of  the  ministers,  was  "apparently  necessary,"  on 


87 


account  of  the  great  importance  of  the  object  which  was  pursued 
by  the  reformers;  then  the  foregoing  accusation  will  be  considered 
most  violent  and  unchristian  railing  on  the  part  of  the  prose- 
cution,  and  the  "evil  speaking"  with  which  they  impugned  the  re- 
formers., will  most  justly  be  chargeable  upon  themselves,  and  upon 
the  Annual  and  General  Conferences,  who  have  identified  them- 
selves with  the  whole  transaction,  and  made  themselves  equally  re- 
sponsible with  the  prosecutors  of  Baltimore. 

At  page  76,  of  Narrative  and  Defence,  they  say,  "to  speak  that 
which  is  true  is  not  evil  speaking,  however  severe  it  may  be" — 
"evil  speaking  means  slander,  defamation,  calumny.  The  Doctor's 
(Jennings's)  defence  then  ought  to  have  been  a  very  different  thing 
from  what  we  find  it."  "He  should  have  sethimself  to  prove  the  truth 
of  the  allegations  made  by  him  and  his  associates  against  our  bishops 
and  other  ministers.  If  he  had  shewn  them  to  be  true,  the  charge  of 
evil  speaking  could  not  have  been  sustained,  although  injuring  the 
reputation  of  another  by  publishing  his  faults  or  failings,  can  only  be 

justified  by  some  apparent  necessity  for  the  disclosure."  "If  the 

Doctor  then  can  prove  what  has  been  alleged,  both  against  the 
living  and  the  dead,  in  the  Mutual  Rights,  he  will  not  only  stand 
acquitted  of  evil  speaking,  but  prove  conclusively  the  necessity  of 
a  thorough  reform,  not  only  of  our  government,  but  of  our  morals." 

In  the  sequel  of  the  review  this  will  be  attempted,  and  it  is  be- 
lieved we  shall  be  able  to  satisfy  the  candid  reader,  that  Reformers 
have  been  shamefully  abused  by  the  Agent  and  the  Conferences. 
And  that  the  Narrative  and  Defence  is  a  most  unwarrantable  at- 
tempt to  impose  upon  the  people  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  and  the  community,  who  it  was  believed,  like  the  official 
men  in  Baltimore,  would  never  "read  the  Mutual  Rights  at  all" 


CHAPTER  IL 

MR.  SNETHEN  ON  CHURCH  PROPERTY. 

Church  property  altogether  under  the  control  of  the  Bishops. 

"Our  church  property  as  well  as  power  are,  in  effect,  in  the 
hands  or  under  the  control  of  the  superintendents,  and  should  the 
constitutional  test  obtain,  it  will  destroy  all  hopes  of  any  legal  or  re- 
gular change  for  the  better."*  The  ' 'constitutional  test"  refers  to  the 
struggle,  for  several  years  maintained  by  many  of  the  travelling 
preachers,  for  making  the  office  of  the  presiding  elders  elective  by 
the  preachers  who  were  to  serve  under  them,  and  not  leaving  it  to 
be  an  affair  of  episcopal  patronage.  If  after  all  the  laboured  efforts 
to  bring  about  this  change,  a  majority  of  the  General  Conference 
shall  determine  to  establish  the  appointment  of  the  presiding  elders 

*  Throughout  this  paper,  the  comments  of  the  Reviewer  are  interspersed 
in  an  easy  and  familiar  way;  presenting  the  reflections  which  were  produced 
on  reading  it  with  a  view  to  its  publication.  Mr.  Snethen's  work  will  be  known 
by  the  marks  of  quotation. 


88 


as  a  part  of  episcopal  prerogative,  then  said  Mr.  Snethen,  "all  hopes 
for  any  legal  or  regular  change  for  the  better"  will  be  destroyed. 

Are  not  these  statements  perfectly  consistent  with  truth  and  pro- 
priety? The  bishops  have  the  power  of  stationing  all  the  preach- 
ers, and  of  appointing  the  presiding  elders  who  shall  exercise  sub- 
ordinate authority  over  them  when  so  stationed.  In  view  of  these 
facts,  Mr.  Snethen  says  "our  church  property  as  well  as  power  are 
in  effect  in  the  hands  or  under  the  control  of  the  superintendents." 
And  could  he  have  said  the  contrary  without  a  violation  of  truth? 
What  is  the  difference  "in  effect,"  between  placing  "the  property 
in  the  hands  or  under  the  controJ  of  the  superintendents,"  and  mak- 
ing it  their  prerogative  to  say,  who  shall  occupy  it?  Why  it  should 
have  given  offence,  because  he  said,  "the  power  of  the  church  is  in 
effect  under  the  control  of  the  superintendents,  we  cannot  see, 
without  admitting  the  supposition  that  even  a  calm  investigation  of 
the  principles  of  their  government,  was  offensive. 

"This  controlling  or  disposing  power  over  public  property,  in 
men  who  hold  an  office  for  life,  is  one  of  the  essential  principles  of 
an  absolute  government,  and  by  an  extension  of  territory,  must 
continue  to  increase  indefinitely."  And  is  not  this  a  true  senti- 
ment? It  is  in  fact  one  of  the  axioms  of  American  statesmen.  No 
sensible  man  doubts  it;  and  its  publication  cannot  give  offence  to 
any  one,  but  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and 
their  devoted  adherents.  "The  disclaiming  all  right  or  pretension 
to  taxation  by  the  General  Conference,  amounts  to  nothing  like  a 
check  upon  the  power  of  the  superintendents  over  property:  but 
does  in  fact,  tend  to  promote  it.  Were  it  in  the  power  of  the  tra- 
velling preachers,  by  any  means  to  secure  an  immediate  support 
from  the  people,  they  might  have  the  people's  money  to  control 
the  power  of  the  Episcopacy;  but  in  the  present  state  of  things, 
they  can  neither  occupy  the  nouses  nor  receive  the  people's  volun- 
tary contributions,  without  an  official  signification  of  the  executive 
will."  And  is  not  all  this  likewise  true,  and  perfectly  inoffensive 
to  all  but  those  who  are  desirous  to  conceal  this  feature  of  the  go- 
vernment of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church? 


CHAPTER  III. 

All  the  Travelling  Preachers  at  the  disposal  of  the  Bishops. 

'All  the  travelling  preachers  are  at  the  disposal  of  the  superin- 
tendents." Nothing  respecting  the  economy  of  what  old  side  men 
call  "Methodism,"  is  more  true  than  this.  "So  long  as  there  shall 
be  more  preachers  than  there  are  places  to  support  them;"  that  is, 
able  stations  and  wealthy  circuits; — and  every  body  knows  that  the 
preachers  are  not  sent  to  these  good  places  by  any  order  of  rota- 
tion;— it  is  as  the  bishops  please.  "So  long,  then,  as  there  shall  be 
more  preachers"  than  good  places,  "the  surplus  number  must  be 
dependent,  and  to  make  this  dependence  universal,  no  preacher 


89 


has  any  security  that  his  lot  to  'turn  out'  may  not  come  next."  We 
have  attended  the  Virginia  Annual  Conference  a  few  times,  and  in 
every  instance  there  was  a  manifest  anxiety  prevailing  in  the  bo- 
soms of  a  number  of  the  preachers.    In  fact,  they  could  not  con- 
ceal their  fears,  not  knowing  who  and  who,  would  be  appointed  to 
the  circuit  called  "the  Banks."  And  in  the  Baltimore  Annual  Con- 
ference, it  has  been  said,  if  certain  individuals  were  sent  to  parti- 
cular circuits,  it  would  make  them  friendly  to  the  election  of  the 
presiding  elders.    It  is  the  prerogative  of  the  bishops  to  appoint 
whom  they  may  see  fit,  to  the  good  circuits  and  stations,  and  to  say 
who  shall  "turn  out"  into  the  highways  and  hedges.    "It  avails 
nothing  that  the  public  property  is  in  the  keeping  of  trustees  and 
stewards.    If  the  houses  cannot  be  taken  from  the  preachers,  the 
preachers  may  be  taken  from  the  houses."    Then  "the  members  of 
the  church  have  in  reality  no  church  property,"  none  that  they  have 
any  ecclesiastical  right  to  control.    The  bishops  without  consult- 
ing the  members,  have  the  exclusive  right  to  say  who  shall  be  the 
occupants  of  the  property.    "And  the  travelling  preachers  have 
none  in  effect."    They  are  all,  at  all  times,  "tenants  at  the  will 
of  the  bishops;  and  at  the  end  of  each  year  may  be  removed." 
And  surely  all  this  is  incontrovertibly  true.    "Are  we  not  virtual- 
ly acting  over  again  St.  Peter's  patrimony  and  Peter's  pence?" 
The  allusion  here  may  not  be  perfectly  appropriate.    The  ques- 
tion, however,  is  addressed  to  the  Methodist  people.    If  every 
house  paid  one  penny  to  the  pope,  by  way  of  acknowledging  his 
claim  to  patrimony  in  England,  do  not  the  Methodist  people,  vir- 
tually make  an  acknowledgment  cf  the  bishops'  patrimony  in  re- 
spect to  their  church  property,  as  universal;  and  as  to  the  worth  of 
the  acknowledgment,  by  far  more  valuable  than  a  penny  for  each 
house?    "In  monarchies  public  property  is  vested  in  the  crown, 
and  of  course,  in  him  who  wears  it."    And  the  church  property  in 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is  at  the  disposal,  as  to  its  occu- 
pancy, of  the  bishops,  and  in  course  of  them  and  their  successors. 
"Hence  we  hear  of  his  Majesty's  arms  and  armies  and  kingdom, 
&c. — of  'we  by  the  grace  of  God,'  and  of  the  'pope's  bull,'  or 
seal  affixed  to  his  official  acts.    By  the  grace  of  God,  is  meant  the 
Divine  right,"  &c.    All  these  are  true,  and  admit  of  application 
according  to  the  reader's  understanding  of  the  facts.  If  he  can  see 
any  similitude  to  these  badges  and  acts  of  monarchy,  and  the  old 
hierarchy  of  Rome,  in  Methodist  Episcopacy;  or  if  he  can  per- 
ceive any  features  in  the  government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  which  have  a  tendency,  sooner  or  later,  to  imitate  the 
church  as  it  exists  under  such  establishments,  he  has  a  right  to  his 
reflections,  and  will  the  bishops  or  preachers  or  people  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  say  openly,  that  Nr.  Snethen,  or  the  print- 
ing committee,  had  no  right  to  think  they  can  see  signs  of  these 
dangerous  tendencies?    "The  hundred  successors  of  Mr.  Wesley, 
who  compose  the  British  Conference,  unite  in  themselves  all  the 
powers  and  functions  that  are  exercised  by  our  General  Conference 
and  superintendents.    They  are  all  bishops  de  facto.    Our  ordina- 
tion conveys  nothing  which  Mr.  Wesley  did  not  give  to  them.  He 


90 

was  not  a  partial  father,  much  less  did  he  disinherit  his  first-born; 
we  congratulate  our  British  brethren  in  this  thing,  that  they  have 
good  sense  enough  not  to  run  after  names  and  shadows."  "There 
is  neither  divine  nor  human  obligation  binding  on  our  General  Con- 
ference, to  confer  a  life  office  on  any  man.  We  know  to  a  cer- 
tainty, that  Mr.  Wesley  never  meant  to  confer  any  power  for  life, 
upon  the  superintendents,  which  he  and  doctor  Coke  ordained;  for 
he  actually  had  it  in  contemplation  to  recall  Mr.  Asbury.  Of  such 
an  event  Mr.  Asbury,  was  so  well  aware,  that  he  took  special  care 
to  prevent  it,  by  getting  himself  elected  superintendent  by  the 
American  preachers."  Mr.  Asbury  has  confirmed  the  truth  of  this 
himself,  in  his  Journal.  The  reader  will  please  to  observe  here,  that 
this  part  of  the  argument  is,  that  Mr.  Wesley  did  not  intend  to 
confer  on  Mr.  Asbury  a  life  office.  In  proof  of  this,  Mr.  Wesley 
having  appointed  Mr.  Asbury  a  superintendent  for  the  United 
States,  was  about  to  recall  him.  Whether  Mr.  Asbury  intended  at 
the  time  to  secure  to  himself  a  life  office,  by  getting  himself  elect- 
ed by  the  American  preachers,  cannot  be  known.  By  so  doing,  he 
placed  himself  out  of  the  reach  of  Mr.  Wesley's  power.  Had  he 
not  done  this,  we  should  have  had  the  evidence  which  his  recall  to 
England  would  have  afforded,  that  Mr.  Wesley  never  meant  to  con- 
fer any  power  on  him  for  life.  The  general  argument  is  against  life 
office.  Mr.  Snethen  asserts,  there  is  no  obligation,  human  or  di- 
vine, binding  on  the  General  Conference,  to  confer  such  office. 
By  human  obligations  he  obviously  means,  the  authority  of  Mr. 
Wesley,  which  he  says  would  have  been  expressed  fully,  by  the  re- 
calling of  Mr.  Asbury.  This  was  prevented  by  Mr.  Asbury,  for  his 
own  reasons,  by  taking  special  care  to  get  himself  elected  by  the 
American  preachers.  Is  not  this  true?  Are  Mr.  Wesley's  or  Mr. 
Asbury' s  motives  misrepresented!  Is  there  any  vehement  railing  in 
this,  or  in  any  part  of  the  foregoing  quotation?? 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Mr.  Snethen1  s  papers  on  Church  Property,  were  written  for  the  benefit 
of  the  Travelling  Preachers,  in  opposition  to  the  unbalanced  power 
of  the  Bishops. 

Mr.  Snethen's  essays  on  church  property,  were  written  for  the 
benefit  of  those  travelling  preachers,  who  were  friendly  to  the  election 
of  the  presiding  elders,  and  were  intended,  particularly,  to  call  the  at- 
tention of  the  itinerant  ministers.  The  printing  committee  so  un- 
derstood them;  and  had  no  expectation,  that  the  facts,  or  the  man- 
ner of  stating  them,  could  give  offence.  "The  consequence  of  ex- 
clusive proprietorship  in  public  property,  in  the  catholic  church,  is 
well  known,  and  has  long  been  seriously  deplored;  but  it  seems 
that  we  take  no  warning  from  the  experience  of  others.  We  have 
fully  set  forth  our  determination,  to  participate  with  our  elder 
brethren,  in  evangelizing  the  world.    The  General  Conference,  in 


91 


their  address,  contemplate  a  meeting  between  the  British  mission- 
aries and  ours,  somewhere  on  the  eastern  coast  of  Asia,  or  Japan. 
But  when  Methodism  shall  thus  have  encircled  the  globe,  will  any 
regard  be  paid  by  the  missionaries  and  their  senders,  to  the  mutual 
rights  of  the  ministers  and  the  people  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  t 
Church}  No  such  thing.  These  senior  and  junior  brethren,  will 
divide  the  Methodist  church  property  of  the  universe  between 
them,  without  listening  to  any  intimation,  that  the  accumulation  of 
so  much  wealth  might  seem  to  savour  of  monopoly  or  avarice,  and 
might  possibly  be  made  to  minister  to  ambition." 

It  had  been  published  to  the  world,  that  the  British  Conference, 
and  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
were  looking  forward  to  the  day,  when  they  shall  be  able  to  extend 
a  belt  around  the  globe;  and  as  this  expectation  accords  well 
enough  with  a  laudable  emulation  to  evangelize  the  world,  it  by  no 
means  merited  censure,  nor  was  it  noticed  with  a  design  to  find 
fault  with  a  purpose  so  commendable.  But  as  the  church  proper- 
ty in  England,  pertaining  to  the  Wesleyan  Methodists,  is  held  by 
the  Conference,  and  as  the  church  property  pertaining  to  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church,  is  deeded  to  trustees,  for  the  use  of  their 
General  Conference,  does  it  not  follow,  that  when  these  two  bodies 
of  Methodists  shall  have  encompassed  the  globe,  they  continuing 
to  maintain  the  same  principles  in  respect  to  church  property,  Mr. 
Snethen's  prediction  will  be  fulfilled?  Will  not  these  senior  and 
junior  brethren  have  divided  the  Methodist  church  property  be- 
tween them?  And  when  we  take  into  the  account,  the  fact,  that 
the  Bishops  and  General  Conference  have  sanctioned  our  excom- 
munication for  publishing  this  prediction  of  the  course  they  will 
probably  take,  can  any  man  of  good  sense,  who  is  disinterested, 
say,  that  it  was  wrong  for  one,  who  knew  Methodist  preachers  as 
well  as  Mr.  Snethen  did,  to  have  thought  he  could  foresee,  and  to 
have  predicted,  that,  if  the  purpose  of  the  two  Conferences  shall 
be  accomplished,  "they  will  not  listen  to  any  intimation,  that  the 
accumulation  of  so  much  wealth  might  seem  to  savour  of  mono- 
poly or  avarice,  and  might  possibly  be  made  to  minister  to  ambi- 
tion?" Good  men,  contemplating  no  ambitious  designs,  instead 
of  being  offended,  would  have  thanked  Mr.  Snethen  for  the  admo- 
nition;— would  have  regarded  it  as  an  evidence  of  his  good  wishes 
for  the  cause  of  truth,  and  profited  by  it,  as  there  might  be  occasion. 

Besides,  Mr.  Snethen  had  good  reasons  to  suppose,  that  no  in- 
considerable number  of  the  most  intelligent  travelling  preachers, 
were  ready  to  appreciate  his  essays  on  church  property;  and  he  had 
no  reason  to  think,  that  any  of  them  could  imagine  he  intended  to 
give  just  cause  of  offence.  "The  great  defect  in  the  government 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,"  in  his  opinion,  "is  the  want 
of  an  independent  legislative  department."  He  believed,  most 
conscientiously,  that  "an  independent  General  Conference  never 
can  exist,  under  the  present  organization."  And  it  was  his  pur- 
pose to  shew,  that  the  irresponsible  authority  of  the  bishops  over 
the  church  property,  would  serve,  in  aid  of  their  appointing  power 
as  to  the  presiding  elders,  to  give  them  an  increasing  influence 


92 


over  the  General  Conference.    His  desire  to  promote  the  election 
of  the  presiding  elder3,  arose  out  of  an  expectation,  that  the  in- 
dependence of  the  General  Conference  would  be  promoted  by  that 
measure,  for  want  of  which,  "a  large  proportion  of  the  legislative 
body  will  inevitably  be  too  much  under  executive  patronage."  In 
the  opinion  that  the  election  of  the  presiding  elders  would  serve  to 
make  the  members  of  the  General  Conference  feel  themselves  more 
independent,  he  consented  with  those  travelling  preachers  who 
were  once  called  reformers.  And  in  broaching  the  subject  of  church 
property,  he  intended  to  make  them  feel  the  importance  of  admit- 
ting the  introduction  of  a  lay  delegation  into  the  General  Confer- 
ence.   By  this  measure,  any  undue  influence  that  the  stationing 
power  of  the  bishops  might  have  over  the  preachers,  would  be  still 
more  effectually  counteracted.  But  enough  has  been  stated  to  shew, 
that  Mr.  Snethen  wrote  for  the  benefit  of  those  travelling  preachers 
who  feared  the  increase  of  episcopal  power,  and  the  community 
will  judge,  how  much  reason  the  printing  committee  had  to  expect, 
that  these  same  travelling  preachers  would  be  found  amongst  the 
most  ready  to  sustain  our  excommunication  for  publishing  Mr. 
Snethen's  papers.    "We  have  said  that  Mr.  Wesley  was  rich  in 
church  property;  and  that  he  knew  and  felt  he  was  so."   Mr.  Wes- 
ley wrote  a  letter  to  Mr.  John  Mason,  dated,  "near  London,  Jan- 
uary J3th,  1790,"  a  copy  of  which  is  published  in  the  London 
Wesleyan  Methodist  Magazine  for  April,  as  follows: — "My  Dear 
Brother, — As  long  as  I  live,  the  people  shall  have  no  share  in 
choosing  either  stewards  or  leaders  among  the  Methodists.  We 
have  not,  and  never  had,  any  such  custom.    We  are  no  republi- 
cans, and  never  intend  to  be.    It  would  be  better  for  those  that  are 
so  minded,  to  go  quietly  away.    I  have  been  uniform,  both  in  doc- 
trine and  discipline,  for  above  these  fifty  years,  and  it  is  a  little  too 
late  for  me  to  turn  into  a  new  path,  now  I  am  old  and  grey-head- 
ed."* &c.    Can  any  man  believe  that  even  Mr.  Wesley,  with  all 
his  firmness,  would  have  written  thus,  if  the  chapels  and  church 
funds  had  not  been  under  his  absolute  control?  "We  say  the  same 
of  our  superintendents;  they  too  know  and  feel  that  they  have  a 
hold  on  the  public  property,  in  virture  of  the  absolute  prerogatives 
of  their  office,  sufficiently  firm  to  enable  them  to  dispossess  any 
preacher,  whenever  they  may  think  proper."    A  moment's  reflec- 
tion upon  the  fact,  that  Mr.  Wesley's  power  was  absolute,  and  that 
all  the  chapels  were  his,  will  prepare  any  man  to  see  that  what  is 
said  in  respect  to' him,  is  true.    And  who  that  knows  the  extent  of 
the  power  and  patronage  of  the  bishops  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  can  doubt  the  truth  of  what  is  said  in  respect  to  them. 
"It  is  to  no  purpose  to  say,  they  cannot  convert  this  property  to 
their  own  private  use.    There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  they  would 
do  so,  if  they  had  the  title  in  fee.    Kings  are  not  wont  to  use  the 
property  of  the  crown  for  their  own  private  benefit,  or  in  other 
words  to  impoverish  themselves  as  kings,  in  order  to  enrich  them- 

*  Might  not  the  Bishops  and  Conference  reiterate  the  same,  at  this  day? 
And  if  soy  ought  not  republicans  to  be  dissatisfied  with  their  government? 


93 


selves  as  individuals.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed,  that  the  holders  of 
absolute  power,  will  be  less  ambitious  than  prodigal  or  covetous 
monarchs.  The  glory  of  superintendents  is  proportionate  to  the 
amount  of  property  they  have  in  their  possession.  Every  house 
that  is  built,  and  every  collection  that  is  made,  adds  to  their  conse- 
quence, by  increasing  their  influence.  Poor  bishops  of  rich  dio- 
cesses  are  not  common;  and  poor  universal  bishops  are  much  less  so." 
So  far,  all  that  has  been  stated  by  Mr.Snethen  is  true. — True,  when 
considered  abstractly  in  view  of  general  principles  and  the  well 
known  and  established  laws  of  human  nature.  True,  when  applied 
to  any  denomination  of  people,  if  episcopal  and  granting  to  their 
bishops  similar  powers. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

The  Travelling  Preachers  not  made  better,  by  this  disposition  of  the 
Church  Property, 

"The  travelling  preachers  also,  while  their  imaginations  are  daz- 
zled with  the  idea  of  their  share  in  the  title  of  property,  secured 
by  deed  to  the  General  Conference,  feel  rich  and  look  down  upon 
the  poverty  of  local  preachers;  their  exclusive  right  to  seats  in  the 
Conferences,  is  indeed  so  flattering  to  their  vanity,  as  in  most  in- 
stances to  blind  them  to  the  actual  state  of  things.  Few  of  them 
can  be  brought  to  reflect  steadily  upon  the  fact,  that  they  are  little 
more  than  trustees  for  the  bishops,  who,  as  soon  as  they  are  elect- 
ed and  inducted  into  office,  are  no  longer  responsible  to  them." 
Universal  experience  and  observation,  make  us  know  the  effect  of 
artificial  and  arbitray  distinctions; — such  distinction  as  is  kept  up 
in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  between  the  travelling  and 
local  preachers.  It  has  an  irresistible  tendency  to  generate  an 
imaginary  importance.  Mr.  Snethen,  no  doubt,  in  his  day  and 
time,  had  felt  its  influence.  We  believe  that  he  and  many  other 
good  men,  Methodist  preachers,  have  resisted  the  temptation  to  be 
vain  on  account  of  their  superiority.  But  whatever  may  Jjave  been 
the  modest  resistance  of  the  most  worthy,  every  man  of  observation 
knows,  the  general  statement  made  by  Mr.  Snethen  in  the  forego- 
ing paragraph,  is  true.  As  to  their  holding  an  interest,  which  in 
effect  is  little  more  than  that  of  trustees  for  the  bishops,  this  is 
proved  to  be  true,  by  the  foregoing  statement  of  facts.  It  is  a 
truth,  however,  which  many  of  the  travelling  preachers  are  unwil- 
ling to  hear.  When  men  assume  to  themselves  importance  upon 
mistaken  principles,  they  in  course  put  a  false  estimate  upon  those 
principles,  and  are  unwilling  to  be  corrected.  Truth  in  such  a 
case  is  offensive.  But  it  is  as  clear  as  a  mid-day  sun  beam,  that 
the  deed  to  the  General  Conference  is,  in  effect,  a  deed  for  the  use 
of  the  bishops,  who,  have  the  right  to  say  who  shall  occupy  the 
property,  and  are  not  responsible  to  the  General  Conference  for 
13 


94 


their  appointments.  "The  power  or  privilege  of  electing  to  an  ab- 
solute office  for  life,  is  the  most  dangerous  that  can  be  vested  in  any 
body  of  men."  It  is  "a  power  or  privilege,"  which  ought  not 
to  be  held  or  exercised  in  a  republican  government.  "The  im- 
portance that  such  electors  are  prone  to  attach  to  themselves, 
is  pleasantly  ridiculed  in  the  story  of  the  cardinal  and  the  pope. 
The  cardinal  when  he  wanted  a  fav  our,  reminded  his  holiness,  that 
he  made  him  pope;  who  wearied  at  length  with  his  importunity, 
replied,  'then  let  me  be  pope.'  This  piece  of  pleasantry,  is  very 
illustrative  of  the  great  folly  of  supposing,  that  men,  when  once 
put  into  office  for  life,  will  afterwards  act  like  those  who  are  made 
accountable  to  their  constituents.  It  shews  very  clearly,  the  im- 
portance of  the  representative  principle,  which  alone  can  make 
men  know  their  dependence  on  their  fellow  men.  "Our  superin- 
tendents are  not  only  chosen  members  of  the  Conferences,  and 
presidents  for  life,  with  the  power  of  choosing  the  presiding  elders 
and  stationing  all  the  preachers;  but  to  make  them  as  independent 
as  possible,  they  are  pensioners  on  the  book  fund,  to  the  full  amount 
of  all  demands:"  of  "all  demands"  which  they  have  a  right  to 
make.  And  what  are  the  items  "of  all  demands?"  Their  family 
expenses.  It  is  stated  in  the  Narrative  and  Defence,  page  39 — 
'It  is  true  that  the  family  expenses  of  the  bishops  are  supplied  from 
the  book  fund.  The  General  Conference  designate  a  committee 
of  travelling  preachers,  to  fix  the  amount  which  shall  be  allowed 
for  the  bishops'  table  expenses.'  And  did  Mr.  Snethen  say  or  in- 
tend more,  than  the  prosecutors  have  themselves  admitted  to  be 
true.  For  their  support,  they  are  made  as  independent  as  possible. 
They  are  placed  in  a  condition  entirely  different,  in  this  respect, 
from  other  Methodist  preachers.  All,  excepting  the  bishops,  are 
supported  by  the  contributions  of  the  people;  and  their  deficien- 
cies may,  or  may  not,  be  made  up  by  the  Conference  collections 
and  the  annual  dividend  from  the  book  fund,  &c.  The  bishops 
have  their  salaries  secured  at  the  Annual  Conferences,  and  their 
table  expenses  secured  by  the  book  fund,  "to  the  full  amount  of  all 
demands."  What  Mr.  Snethen  has  written  on  this  subject,  then, 
is  true,  the  flouncing  of  the  Narrative  and  Defence,  notwith- 
standing. "The  discipline,  by  putting  no  check  upon  their  power, 
presumes  they  can  do  no  wrong."  What  power  does  Mr.  Snethen 
mean? — Most  clearly  the  appointing  and  stationing  power.  In 
what  sense  then  does  the  discipline  presume  the  bishops  can  do 
no  wrong?  In  appointing  the  presiding  elders,  and  in  stationing 
the  preachers.  And  is  not  this  all  true?  "In  one  point  of  com- 
parison it  must  be  confessed  that  the  American  itinerant  preacher 
seems  to  have  the  advantage  of  the  British;  but  another  view  of 
their  condition  will  convince  any  one,  that  none  of  these  seeming 
advantages  can  be  realized.  In  England,  travelling  preachers  who 
have  fulfilled  their  probation,  are  eligible  to  the  vacancies  in  the 
Conference. — With  us,  they  become  members  of  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences, and  are  eligible  to  seats  in  the  General  Conference,  and 
in  course  nominal  proprietors  of  the  church  property.  Here  their 
glory  ends.     Innocence  or  neutrality  gives  no  security  to  our 


95 


preachers,  to  an  equality  of  appointments.  Every  preacher,  as 
well  as  the  presiding  elders,  may  become  a  minister  to  the  episco- 
pacy. Probationers  may  manifest  greater  zeal  for  the  prerogative, 
than  men  of  long  standing  and  experience.  Offences  must  needs 
come,  and  do  often  come,  in  despite  of  the  greatest  prudence." 
All  these  things  may  and  sometimes  do  come  to  pass,  or  Methodist 
bishops,  and  Methodist  preachers,  are  exempted  from  the  common 
infirmities  of  men.  But  of  this,  more  in  the  sequel.  "No  travel- 
ling preacher  can  protect  himself  against  episcopal  suspicion,  or 
jealousy,  or  displeasure;  and  however  unjustifiable  a  bishop's  feel- 
ings may  be,  he  may  retain  them  through  life,  and  perhaps  transfer 
them  into  the  breasts  of  his  colleagues."  In  such  a  government 
as  that  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  with  an  episcopacy 
holding  such  powers,  any  man  acquainted  with  human  nature, 
would  be  led,  if  there  were  occasion,  to  predict  all  these  things. 
They  have  occurred  and  will  recur,  under  existing  circumstances, 
so  long  as  bishops  and  travelling  preachers  are  men.  And  when 
Mr.  Snethen  only  exhibited  them  as  men,  and  gave  no  intimation 
that  he  thought  them  worse  than  other  men,  in  like  circumstances, 
will  any  one  say  that  the  printing  committee  had  any  right  to  con- 
sider it  libellous?  Or  was  it  the  duty  of  the  committee,  to  say  one 
to  another,  this  will  not  do?  Bishops  and  travelling  preachers  are 
so  puffed  with  vanity,  that  unless  they  shall  be  represented  as  being 
elevated  above  such  human  weaknesses,  they  will  expel  us  for 
speaking  evil  of  ministers!  But  what  "great  occasion"  was  there 
for  exposing  these  weaknesses?  The  occasion  was  ample.  What 
is  the  argument?  That  the  government  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  needs  correction,  in  view  of  the  well-being-  of  the 
travelling  preachers.  Methodist  preachers  of  Great  Britain,  are  in 
more  agreeable  circumstances,  than  those  of  the  United  States. 
And  the  General  Conference  ought  to  see  the  impropriety  of 
making  bishops  for  life.  They  ought  to  elect  their  presiding  elders. 
They  ought  to  make  their  legislative  body  more  independent,  by 
introducing  a  lay-delegation  into  that  department. 

"It  is  possible  indeed,  that  they  cannot  all  be  united  in  a  pro- 
scription; but  is  it  not  infinitely  more  improbable,  that  fifty  men 
will  withhold  their  votes  for  a  presidency,  year  after  year,  from 
every  one  who  will  not  imbibe  their  prejudices.  The  chances, 
therefore,  of  being  driven,  or  persecuted  out  of  connexion  in  the 
two  systems,  bear  no  proportion.  Though  an  hundred  men  may 
be  as  true  to  their  common  interests,  as  one  or  five,  and  a  feeling 
of  independence  must  be  engendered  in  both  instances,  yet  it  is  of 
the  utmost  importance  to  weaken  and  conceal  the  feeling  as  much 
as  possible."  In  view  of  the  premises  how  true!  And  upon  the 
most  cool  and  dispassionate  review,  we  still  think  as  we  thought 
when  the  essays  passed  our  board,  they  clearly  prove  that  the 
writer  understood  his  subject  well,  and  that  his  arguments  are 
much  to  the  purpose. 


96 


CHAPTER  V. 

That  part  of  Mr.  Snethen' s  paper,  which  the  agent  says,  can  only 
find  a  parallel  in  the  Romish  Inquisitions. 

"It  is  a  maxim  with  some,  and  every  four  years  of  experience 
serves  to  confirm  them  in  it,  that  if  a  preacher  is  not  prepared  to 
go  all  lengths  in  episcopal  measures,  he  will  do  well  to  decline  an 
election  to  a  seat  in  the  General  Conference."  The  reader  will 
please  to  keep  it  in  recollection,  that  this  paper  was  written  for  the 
travelling  preachers,  a  number  of  whom,  professed  at  that  time  to 
be  friendly  to  reform.  And  was  there  any  just  cause  of  offence,  in 
the  fact,  that  Mr.  Snethen  understood  it  to  be  a  maxim  with  some 
of  the  travelling  preachers,  that  it  was  not  quite  safe,  to  appear  in 
the  General  Conference,  in  opposition  to  episcopal  measures? — or, 
in  that  it  was  his  understanding,  that  every  General  Conference 
afforded  experience  to  confirm  them  in  their  maxim?  We  were 
prepared  to  admit  the  statement  without  hesitation,  by  conversa- 
tons  which  happened  at  our  house,  whilst  the  General  Conference 
of  1824  was  in  session,  and  which  fairly  intimated  the  same  thing. 
It  is  well  known  in  Baltimore,  that  much  excitement  prevailed.  It 
was  no  secret,  that  a  number  of  the  preachers  talked  seriously  of 
retiring  en  masse,  so  as  to  prevent  those  who  might  remain,  from 
forming  a  constitutional  majority.  So  anxious  were  they  at  the 
time  to  check  the  progress  of  episcopal  power!  Mr.  Snethen, 
who  had  been  a  travelling  preacher,  had  greater  intimacy  with  the 
members  of  the  General  Conference  than  we,  and  had  learned 
from  them,  that  "it  was  a  maxim  with  some"  that  it  was  safe  not  to 
go  to  the  General  Conference,  if  they  foresaw  that  duty  would 
compel  them  to  oppose  episcopal  measures.  "More  than  one 
travelling  preacher,  might,  perhaps,  feelingly  repeat,  in  regard  to 
Baltimore,  with  a  member  of  the  synod  of  Dort:  0  Dort,  Dort!  O 
Baltimore,  Baltimore!  would  to  God  I  never  had  seen  thee!  The 
hero  of  opposition  may  return  to  his  work,  complacent  in  the  con- 
sciousness of  his  own  integrity,  unawed  by  the  fear  of  man;  but 
the  eye  of  episcopal  vigilance  is  upon  him."  Possibly  Mr. 
Snethen.  when  he  wrote  this,  was  acquainted  with  one  or  more 
such  cases.  If  he  were  not,  then  he  supposed  "there  might  per- 
haps" be  found  more  than  one,  who  had  exercised  their  own  judg- 
ment in  the  General  Conference,  and  felt  so  firm  as  to  think  that 
no  episcopal  power  or  subsequent  occurrence,  would  ever  change 
their  purpose.  But  at  the  same  time  that  they  might  feel  compla- 
cency in  the  consciousness  of  their  own  integrity,  existing  cir- 
cumstances might  at  last  weaken  their  integrity.  Whenever  they 
find  it  necessary  to  oppose  episcopal  measures,  they  must  know 
that  the  eye  of  episcopal  vigilance  will  descry  them.  The  hero 
may  at  length  find  himself  in  such  a  situation,  that  he  may  not 
only  cease  to  oppose,  but  yield  to  episcopal  authority.  Suppose, 
for  instance,  that  "his  health  declines;  the  afflictions  of  his  family, 
and  cares  and  wants  multiply  upon  him."    In  such  a  case  it  may 


\)1 


become  necessary  for  the  comfort; — for  the  very  existence  of  his 
family,  that  he  shall  have  secured  the  commiseration,  if  not  the 
favour  of  the  bishops.  If  his  family  is  sickly,  then  "he  needs  a 
house  at  hand;  for  he  cannot  move  far  off;  he  wants  medicine  and 
bread!"  And  to  whom  can  he  look  in  such  extremity,  but  to  the 
bishops?  "To  which  of  the  saints"  beside  the  bishops,  "will  he 
now  turn,  to  which  of  his  friends,  say,  pity  me,  0!  my  friend,  for 
the  hand  of  God  hath  touched  me!"  And  is  it  possible  that  mem- 
bers of  the  General  Conference,  with  all  their  imaginary  rights  to 
control  the  episcopacy,  are  so  entirely  dependent  on  the  will  of 
the  bishops?  "What?  can  he  want  a  house  and  a  home  and  the 
means  of  support,  who  inherits  all  houses  and  property,  to  the  ex- 
clusion of  local  preachers  and  the  laity?  Can  a  member  of  that 
General  Conference  to  whom  so  many  thousands  have  been  deeded, 
become  a  houseless  wanderer,  a  pennyless  stranger,  among  a 
strange  people?"  Whatever  may  have  been  his  calculations  upon 
his  supposed  interest  in  the  common  property  of  the  church,  if 
he  should  find  himself  thus  overwhelmed  with  the  afflictions  and 
increasing  wants  of  his  family,  it  would  be  fruitless  to  look  for  aid, 
from  any  or  all  of  his  other  companions  in  labours.  He  may  ask 
for  help  from  them,  but  in  vain.  He  may  be  beloved  of  them  all, 
and  yet  have  occasion  to  say,  "where  now  has  the  spirit  of  sym- 
pathy and  fellow-feeling  fled!  0!  where  are  his  brethren  whose 
turn  may  come  next?"  When  all  are  alike  liable  to  similar  afflic- 
tions, will  they  not  commiserate  his  case?  However  much  they 
may  be  moved  with  compassion,  the  individual  in  distress  may  still 
have  occasion  to  inquire,  "is  there  no  power  in  this  heaven  and 
earth?" — this  whole  body  of  Methodist  preachers, — "to  save  him 
from  the  dread  of  starvation?  None.  How  is  this?  Plainly  thus: 
When  all  is  given  away,  nothing  remains.  The  General  Confer- 
ence have  given  the  bishops  a  life  power  over  that  very  property, 
which  the  donors  vested  in  themselves.  When  they  are  made  to 
know  the  worth  of  this  property  by  the  want  of  it,  at  that  very 
juncture  they  may  be  made  to  feel,  that  they  can  enjoy  no  part  of 
it."  And  is  not  this  a  strong  argument  against  the  propriety  of 
conferring  so  much  power  for  life,  upon  the  episcopacy?  With 
such  views  of  the  subject,  was  it  not  benevolent  in  Mr.  Snethen, 
to  admonish  the  travelling  ministry  of  the  temptations  to  which 
they  have  exposed  themselves  by  the  measure,  the  dangers  of  which, 
he  has  so  effectually  made  evident?  Who  of  them  all  when  in 
distress,  being  heavily  oppressed  with  forebodings  of  expected  ills, 
will  fail  to  cast  about  and  say  to  himself,  "and  is  there  no  remedy? 
Are  bishops  and  presiding  elders  all  past  feeling?  Perhaps  there 
is  one  open  door  left."  As  a  large  majority  of  the  clergy  of  Eng- 
land, in  the  days  of  Mary  and  Elizabeth,  and  Charles  and  Oliver 
Cromwell,  found  it  convenient  to  accommodate  themselves  to  the 
ruling  powers,  so  also,  "perhaps,"  our  hero  might  be  induced,  for 
the  comfort  of  his  family  to  accommodate  himself  to  executive 
measures.  And  if  such  possible  case  should  occur; — if  the  epis- 
copacy should  find  it  convenient  to  pursue  one  or  more  of  such 
heroes  to  submission,  "what  executive  purpose  can  be  so  inflexible  as 


98 


not  to  relent,  when  executive  measures  have  converted  a  poor  and  needy 
opponent!"  It  is  hoped  that  preachers,  when  made  to  see  the  pit 
which  they  themselves  have  digged,  will  shun  it,  by  diminishing 
the  episoopal  prerogative.  And  it  is  hoped  that  bishops  them- 
selves will  be  wise  to  consent  in  the  change,  that  they  may  escape 
the  temptation  on  their  part;  especially  when  they  consider  the 
obloquy  to  which  such  oppressive  pursuit  would  expose  them. 
Disinterested  bye-standers  would  tauntingly  say,  "oh!  we  hope 
that  none  of  these  elder  brethren  will  refuse  to  join  the  music  and 
dancing,  when  one  who  was  lost  is  thus  found." 

The  paragraph  is  now  before  the  reader  in  all  the  fulness  of  its 
meaning.  And  where  is  there  in  it,  any  violation  of  truth?  Or 
where  the  vehement  railing  or  defamation,  for  proof  which  it  was 
introduced  into  the  Narrative  and  Defence?  It  appears  to  us  in 
the  same  light  in  which  it  was  viewed  by  the  committee,  when  it 
was  passed  for  publication.  We  then  considered  it  an  argument 
of  great  force,  particularly  addressed  to  members  of  the  General 
Conference;  and  although  it  was  calculated  to  rouse  attention,  yet 
in  view  of  the  nature  of  the  subject,  it  was  handled  in  a  very  deli- 
cate manner. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

The  Agent's  comment,  is  a  miserable  distortion  of  Mr.  Snethen's 

meaning. 

The  reader  shall  now  have  an  opportunity  to  judge  of  the  fitness 
of  our  prosecutors  for  the  high  powers  which  they  assumed,  in  ex- 
pelling us  for  publishing  Mr.  Snethen's  papers.    "In  the  above 
quotation,''  say  they,  Narrative  and  Defence,  page  41,  "the  picture 
which  the  writer  has  drawn  in  the  last  paragraph,  of  the  intolerant 
persecuting  spirit  of  our  bishops,  can  only  find  a  parallel  in  the 
Romish  Inquisition.    To  starve  the  healthy  dependent  into  sub- 
mission to  arbitrary  power,  would  probably  be  considered  suffi- 
ciently odious  in  a  civilized,  not  to  say  Christian  community:  but 
to  deprive  the  sick  opponent  of  shelter,  and  food,  and  medicine, 
until  he  is  forced  into  improper  compliances  with  episcopal  pre- 
rogative, is  a  hardihood  of  cruelty,  at  which  the  heart  sickens,  and 
at  which  the  soul  of  an  ordinary  inquisitor  would  revolt.  The 
wretch  who  would  be  guilty  of  such  barbarity,  ought  to  be  deemed 
to  have,  renounced  all  affinity  with  his  species,  and  hunted  down 
as  the  common  enemy  of  mankind.    Can  any  man  believe,  that 
such  a  monster  is  to  be  found  among  the  venerable  bishops  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church?    If  Mr.  Snethen,  or  the  Editorial 
Committee  who  published  the  accusation,  know  the  man,  and  the 
facts,  why  not  name  the  one,  and  point  directly  to  the  other.  Why 
these  cruel  inuendoes,  which  may  be  ignorantly  applied  to  the  in- 
nocent."   *****  page  4*2.    "It  cannot  be  pretended,  that  the 
calumny  we  have  quoted  above,  is  not  meant  to  describe  what  has 
occurred,  but  what  may  be  anticipated.    There  are  in  the  allusions 


of  the  author,  a  specification  of  place  and  time,  and  a  circumstan- 
tiality of  description,  which  necessarily  point  out  an  individuality 
of  application,  both  as  to  the  oppressor  and  the  oppressed.  And  the 
sombre  picture  of  the  stern  and  inflexible  tyranny  of  the  episcopacy, 
which  nothing  but  humble  submission  can  appease,  is  only  equal- 
led by  the  profligacy  of  those  "elder  brethren,"  those  panders  to 
power  and  prerogative,  who  are  represented  by  the  author,  as  join- 
ing the  music  and  dancing  over  the  converted  starvling — the  bro- 
ken hearted  victim  of  episcopal  cruelty  and  oppression!  !  It  may 
be  asked  by  the  reader,  how  it  was  possible  for  the  reverend  author 
of  the  publication  from  which  we  have  made  the  above  extract,  to 
be  betrayed  into  such  an  indiscretion:  as  it  will  not  be  denied,  that 
he  had  long  been  esteemed  as  an  able  minister,  and  a  pious,  amia- 
ble man."  ******  "The  author  was  climbing  the  steep  and 
slippery  ascent,  to  revolutionary  distinction." — "He  was  not  only 
a  partizan — but  a  leader  of  a  party — and  with  reference  to  our 
church  government  and  its  administration,  he  looked  upon  every 
thing  through  the  spectacles  which  party  spirit  had  furnished  him. 
Through  this  medium,  every  opponent  and  every  measure  of  oppo- 
sition is  made  to  take  the  hue,  with  which  party  feeling  discolours 
them,  and  the  author  mistook  for  realities,  what  were  the  mere  vi- 
sions of  a  disturbed  and  vivid  imagination,"  page  43.  "But  what 
shall  we  say  of  those  who  published  these  ravings  of  a  disordered 
fancy?  Who  with  calm  deliberation  laid  them  before  the  public  as 
sober  realities?  Reader,  are  you  a  Christian? — then  shun  party  as 
an  evil  influence,  which  if  indulged,  will  inevitably  destroy  the 
spirit  of  love  and  of  meekness,  and  substitute  for  them,  malice  and 
revenge,  and  every  evil  work."  Let  the  candid  reader  compare 
this  coarse  and  strained  comment  with  the  true  design  of  Mr.  Sne- 
then's  paper,  and  he  will  be  obliged  to  see  the  high  pitch  to  which 
the  prosecutors  had  wrought  up  their  feelings,  and  the  extravagant 
effort  which  the  agent  made  to  excite  resentment  in  the  feelings  of 
the  Methodist  public  against  the  friends  of  Mutual  Rights: — and 
that  they  were  partizans,  who  themselves  furnished  the  most  per- 
fect instances  of  the  want  of  "the  spirit  of  love  and  meekness." 
In  fact,  their  comment  is  such  a  complete  caricature  of  Mr.  Sne- 
then's  "picture,"  that  one  cannot  well  avoid  the  conclusion,  when 
they  said,  "party  spirit,  for  the  spirit  of  love  and  meekness,  substi- 
tutes malice  and  revenge  and  every  evil  work,"  they  inadvertently 
published  a  report  of  their  own  experience. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

The  high  and  independent  condition  of  the  Bishops,  naturally  tends 
to  produce  an  habitual  practice  of  flattery. 

"Our  bishops  must  be  flattered,  or  their  power  must  be  resisted." 
Considering  the  immense  patronage  of  the  bishops  and  their  ap- 
pointing power,  Mr.  Snethen  was  of  the  opinion,  that  the  preach- 
ers generally,  would  be  impelled,  sooner  or  later,  either  to  flatter 


100 


them;— -in  course,  from  time  to  time  to  give  them  additional  power; 
or  to  concert  ways  and  means  to  check  its  growth.    "But  flattery 
is  easier  and  more  pleasant,  than  resistance  to  oppressive  power." 
This  is  a  truth  confirmed  by  the  experience  of  all  ages; — and  being 
true  at  all  times,  and  under  all  circumstances; — "itinerant  and  local 
preachers,  and  members  of  the  church,  therefore  will  discover  a 
proneness  to  flatter  bishops.  For  the  same  reason,  local  preachers 
and  members  will  feel  disposed  to  flatter  itinerant  preachers." 
And  was  there  any  vehement  railing,  in  supposing  that  Methodist 
itinerant  and  local  preachers  and  members,  would  have  a  proneness 
to  feel  and  act  like  other  people  in  similar  circumstances?    Or  was 
it  requisite  for  the  printing  committee  to  believe,  that  the  report  of 
history  could  afford  no  assistance,  when  they  were  called  on  to 
judge  of  the  character  of  Methodist  people,  and  of  the  probable 
course  they  would  pursue?    "But  can  any  reason  be  assigned,  why 
the  private  members  of  the  church  should  despise  local  preachers, 
or  that  they  should  manifest  an  indifference  or  aversion  towards  each 
other?"    If  this  unhappy  state  of  things  exists,  perhaps  the  cause 
of  it  can  be  developed.    "Evidently,  when  the  awe  that  the  wealth 
and  power  of  office  inspire,  is  no  longer  felt  or  ceases  to  operate 
under  the  disguise  of  flattery,  the  mind  experiences  are-action  and 
seeks  to  revenge  itself  upon  the  name  or  form  of  the  office  depriv- 
ed of  its  attributes."    This  sentence  reports  a  law  of  human  na- 
ture, and  is  therefore  true:  or  if  no  such  law  obtains,  it  was  at  the 
worst,  one  of  Mr.  Snethen's  'visionary'  notions  on  the  subject.  We 
admitted  its  truth,  and  therefore  published  it:  and  would  blush,  if 
we  were  too  ignorant  of  mankind,  not  to  know  it  to  be  true.  The 
prosecutors  were  at  liberty  to  entertain  a  different  opinion.  "Let 
the  property  and  power  which  are  really  in  our  bishops,  and  nomi- 
nally in  the  itinerant  preachers,  be  transferred  to  the  local  preach- 
ers, and  the  public  feelings  will  also  be  transferred."    And  who 
that  has  made  useful  observation  on  men  and  things,  does  not  know, 
that  this  sentiment  is  according  to  human  experience?    Men  thus 
practice  imposition  upon  themselves.    Aaron  and  the  children  of 
Israel  made  a  golden  calf.    They  knew  it  was  a  creature  of  their 
own  making,  and  yet  they  still  consented  to  pay  it  homage.  Men 
confer  factitious  honors  upon  their  fellow-men,  and  then  turn  round 
and  make  themselves  believe  the  elevation  is  a  reality.  In  this  way 
they  flatter  wealth  and  power,  though  known  to  be  in  the  posses- 
sion of  men  unworthy  of  notice.    "The  flatterer  pleases  himself 
by  his  flatteries,  while  he  seeks  to  please  those  whom  he  flatters. 
And  this  pleasure  proceeds  from  the  relief  which  the  mind  experi- 
ences, from  the  uneasy  or  painful  sensation  of  fear.    Mankind  are 
sparing  of  their  flattery  towards  those  of  whom  they  have  nothing 
to  hope,  and  from  whom  they  have  nothing  to  fear.    The  president 
of  the  United  States  is  not  flattered  as  a  king;  but  would  be,  if  his 
power  was  as  much  feared."    These  sentences  are  all  general 
truths,  and  need  no  comment.   "We  are  aware,  that  an  intimation, 
that  our  bishops  and  itinerant  preachers  are  feared  by  the  members 
and  the  local  preachers,  will  be  repelled  with  great  indignation." 
In  this  prediction,  Mr.  Snethen,  might  be  thought  by  some,  to  have 


101 


been  inspired  with  the  spirit  of  prophecy.  It  was,  however,  a  mere 
application  of  his  theory,  to  the  people  upon  whom  his  eye  was 
turned.  In  respect  to  them  "indeed  our  whole  theory  of  feeling 
in  this  case,  will  be  considered  as  visionary  and  erroneous.  Our 
statement  is  nevertheless  true,  and  admits  of  the  clearest  de- 
monstration." The  demonstration,  to  candid  and  disinterested 
men  will  be  satisfactory,  and  will  for  ever  stigmatize  those  who  were 
so  highly  offended  with  truths,  which  ought  to  have  instructed  and 
reproved  them.  "Mr.  Wesley,  was  greatly  flattered,  and  so  was  Mr. 
Asbury.  They,  indeed,  mistook  these  expressions  for  the  marks  of 
love,  and  so  did  those  who  made  them.  But  though  it  is  not  to 
be  doubted,  that  there  was  much  sincere  affection,  this  was  to  the 
men.  Their  property  and  power  were  feared;  as  was  the  fear,  so 
was  the  flattery.  Some  of  our  bishops,  we  perceive,  will  be  much 
flattered  to  the  south  and  west  of  the  Susquehanna,  and  much  and 
deservedly  loved  too.  But,  it  does  not  now  seem  probable,  that 
they  will  receive  much  eulogy  from  the  north  and  east.  If  this 
shall  prove  to  be  the  fact,  will  not  the  limits  of  their  praise  be  the 
limits  within  which  their  power  will  be  feared?"  These  appeals  to 
facts  and  circumstances,  were  made  to  the  travelling  preachers, 
with  intention  to  shew  them  the  inevitable  tendencies  of  their  epis- 
copacy, unless  they  should  take  measures  to  limit  the  powers  of 
the  bishops.  Mr.  Snethen  took  pains  to  shew  the  secret  workings 
of  the  mind  and  heart  when  brought  into  contact  with  power  and 
wealth,  and  then  presented  explanatory  facts  of  the  highest  grade, 
to  confirm  the  truth,  and  shew  the  importance  of  his  argument. 
His  principles,  he  shewed  them,  would  apply  even  to  Mr.  Wesley 
and  Mr.  Asbury,  two  of  the  best  and  most  distinguished  men,  that 
had  ever  lived  in  the  Methodist  connexion.  And  he  was  informed 
by  travelling  preachers,  some  of  whom,  when  he  wrote,  were  in- 
clined to  resist  the  growing  power  of  the  bishops,  but  who  since, 
have  found  it  easier  or  more  agreeable  to  run  with  the  multitude; — 
he  was  informed,  however,  by  some  of  these,  not  only  that  things 
were  taking  the  usual  course,  but  that  some  of  the  bishops  would 
have  an  influence  to  the  south  and  west,  and  others  to  the  north 
and  east; — an  evil  which  he  wished  them  to  avoid.  "We  beg  that 
these  remarks  may  be  attended  to,  and  carefully  kept  in  mind. 
These  are  the  data,  on  which  we  have  predicated  the  separation  of 
the  north  and  the  east,  from  the  south  and  the  west.  Where  their 
power  is  not  flattered,  it  will  be  resisted.  This  is  not  an  unwar- 
ranted assertion;  it  is  not  a  new  case;  it  is  the  thing  that  hath  al- 
ready been.  Leaving  Mr.  Wesley's  name  out  of  the  minutes,  is  a 
parallel  instance,  and  may  be  traced  to  a  similar  cause.  The  ab- 
sence of  the  man,  disclosed  the  workings  of  the  fear:  had  he  been 
present,  flattery  would  have  concealed  it  all."*  This  explanatory 
reference  to  a  well  known  fact,  tells  in  a  language  which  cannot 
be  misunderstood,  what  Mr.  Snethen  intended  by  the  terms  "fear" 
and  "flattery."    It  also  specifies  the  limits  by  which  he  intended 

*  This  transaction  will  be  noticed  again  in  another  place. 

14 


102 


his  meaning  to  be  bounded.  "Traces  of  a  similar  operation  may 
be  observed  in  doctor  Coke's  visits.  His  power  was  not  half  so 
much  to  be  dreaded  as  Mr.  Asbury's;  and  yet  the  conference  re- 
quired articles  to  curb  it,  while  he  was  in  England."  So  strangely 
does  the  human  mind  elude  the  observation  of  its  own  operations. 
"Of  all  the  illusions  which  the  human  mind  practises  on  itself, 
none  is  more  wonderful,  than  that  which  takes  place  in  the  case  of 
flattery.  We  always  had  occasion  to  notice,  that  Mr.  Asbury 
placed  his  chief  reliance  for  the  ascendency  of  his  influence,  upon 
his  presence.  Where  trouble  was,  there  was  he."  His  experi- 
ence and  observation  had  taught  him  to  know  how  great  the  influ- 
ence of  his  presence,  and  therefore  wherever  his  presence  was 
needed,  like  a  faithful  pastor,  whatever  pains  it  might  cost  him, 
there  he  would  be  found. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

The  misrepresentations  of  the  Agent  and  the  prosecutors  conclusively 
demonstrated. 

The  reader  now  has  had  an  opportunity  to  see  what  were  the 
views  of  the  printing  committee  in  publishing  Mr.  Snethen's  papers 
on  church  property.    And  we  fearlessly  challenge  any  man  to  shew 
a  departure  from  truth,  or  to  specify  any  vehement  railing  or  evil 
speaking  in  any  part  of  them.    We  had  no  expectation  that  any 
other  construction  would  be  put  upon  them,  than  that  which  we 
have  submitted  in  the  preceding  comments.    Much  less,  that  they 
would  be  subjected  to  such  distortion,  as  the  following  remarks  are 
intended  to  produce.  See  Narrative  and  Defence,  p.  44.  The  Agent, 
for  the  prosecutors,  says:  "What  a  disgusting  picture  is  here  drawn 
of  Mr.  Wesley,  our  bishops  and  travelling  preachers!    The  one  ca- 
tering for  praise,  the  others  fawning  and  cringing  to  power  and  pre- 
rogative, and  flattering  these  tyrannical  prelates  as  though  they  had 
places  and  offices  of  emolument,  in  their  gift."    Will  the  reader 
pause,  and  compare  this  account  with  what  Mr.  Snethen  actually 
wrote?    "Mr.  Wesley  was  greatly  flattered,  and  so  was  Mr.  Asbu- 
ry.   They  indeed  mistook  these  expressions  for  the  marks  of  love, 
and  60  did  those  v:ho  made  them.    There  was  much  affection,  this 
was  to  the  men.    Their  property  and  power  were  feared;  and  as 
was  the  fear,  so  was  the  flattery."    Mr.  Snethen  said,  that  Mr. 
Wesley  and  Mr.  Asbury,  and  in  like  manner  the  bishops  and  tra- 
velling preachers,  were  all  flattered,  but  it  was  the  effect  of  the  insti- 
tution, insomuch,  that  neither  those  who  flattered,  in  the  sense  in 
which  Mr.  Snethen  used  the  term,  nor  those  who  were  the  subjects 
of  the  flatteries,  were  conscious  of  the  act.    But  the  prosecutors 
say,  Mr.  Snethen  represented  the  one  as  catering  for  praise,  the 
others  as  fawning  and  cringing,  fyc.    Whether  this  barefaced  mis- 
representation, was  intentional  on  the  part  of  the  Agent,  or  was 
unconsciously  the  effect  of  blinded  bigotry,  or  of  an  honest  misun- 


103 


derstanding  of  Mr.  Snethen's  meaning,  we  leave  it  with  him  to 
determine.  In  the  mean  time,  we  will  only  add,  that  so  far  are  we 
from  condemning  Mr  Snethen's  papers,  we  consider  it  due  to  him, 
to  say,  that  he  is  entitled  to  the  gratitude  of  old  side  men  and  re- 
formers, for  the  very  philosophical  account  he  has  given,  of  the 
deleterious  effect  of  the  government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church. 

Mr.  Snethen,  in  the  course  of  the  foregoing  argument  against 
the  life  office  of  the  bishops,  says:  "We  know  to  a  certainty,  that 
Mr.  Wesley  never  meant  to  confer  any  power  for  life,  upon  the 
superintendents  which  he  and  doctor  Coke  ordained;  for  he  actu- 
ally had  it  in  contemplation  to  recall  Mr.  Asbury.  Of  such  an 
event  Mr.  Asbury  was  so  well  aware,  that  he  took  special  care  to 
prevent  it,  by  getting  himself  elected  superintendent  by  the  Ameri- 
can preachers."  What  was  the  object  according  to  Mr.  Snethen's 
view,  which  Mr.  Asbury  intended  to  accomplish  by  getting  himself 
elected,  &c.?  To  "prevent"  his  being  recalled  by  Mr.  Wesley. 
And  was'there  any  "vehement  railing,  any  evil  speaking,"  implied  in 
the  statement,  that  Mr.  Asbury  was  apprehensive,  that  Mr.  Wesley 
might  recall  him  to  England,  but  he  greatly  preferred  staying  in 
the  United  States,  and  therefore  "took  special  care  to  get  himself 
elected  by  the  American  preachers,"  that  he  might  not  be  recalled? 
Was  there  any  unkindness  towards  Mr.  Asbury,  implied  in  this? 
So  far  as  we  can  judge,  no  disparagement  was  intended  to  Mr.  As- 
bury's  reputation.  But  the  agent  who  made  his  selections  and 
extracts  with  a  view  to  their  intended  effect  on  the  Methodist 
community,  gives  the  following  comment.  "The  allegation  against 
Mr.  Asbury,  'that  he  took  special  good  care  to  get  himself  elected, 
by  the  American  preachers,'  is  the  'unkindest  cut  of  all.'  Mr.  As- 
bury refused  to  be  superintendent  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  unless  he  should  be  elected  by  the  free  suffrages  of  his 
brethren.  And  was  it  not  praise-worthy  to  do  so?"  Did  Mr. 
Snethen  say  it  was  not?  "He  might  have  been  superintendent  by 
Mr.  Wesley's  appointment,  as  doctor  Coke  was."  True,  and  he 
might  then  have  been  subject  to  Mr.  Wesley's  recall.  "But  he 
would  not  exercise  authority  over  any,  but  those  who  consented  to 
confer  it  upon  him,  and  this  is  called  'taking  special  good  care  to 
get  himself  elected,  by  the  American  preachers.'  "  Mr.  Snethen 
did  not  say  Mr.  Asbury  took  special  good  care  to  get  himself 
elected,  intending  any  reproach  to  Mr.  Asbury,  but  that  Mr.  As- 
bury took  special  care,  the  word  good  he  did  not  use  at  all;  he  took 
special  care  to  get  himself  elected,  in  order  to  ensure  his  stay  in 
the  United  States.  What  a  detraction  from  Mr.  Asbury's  reputation!! 
Mr.  Snethen  said,  in  order  to  prevent  his  recall  to  England,  which 
was  to  insure  his  stay  in  the  United  States,  he  took  special  care  to 
get  himself  elected!!  Had  he  not  taken  such  special  care,  he 
would  have  been  placed  in  a  relatiou  to  the  American  preachers, 
similar  to  that  of  doctor  Coke.  He  was  apprized,  however,  that 
Mr.  Wesley  had  thoughts  of  recalling  him.  He  prudently  took 
this  step  to  prevent  his  recall.  And  for  publishing  this  transaction, 
according  to  Mr.  Snethen's  view,  the  editors  of  the  Mutual  Rights, 


104 


were  condemned.  And  the  prosecutors  have  republished  it  with 
their  comment  so  managed,  that  with  the  old-side  Methodists  it 
passes  for  "vehement  railing,  bitter  reviling  and  defamation."  "It 
was  in  fact  the  unkindest  cut  of  all."  !!  But  we  have  dwelt  on  this 
part  particularly,  to  shew  the  reader,  not  only  that  the  agent  aimed 
at  the  effect  intended  to  be  produced  by  the  Narrative  and  De- 
fence, but  that  he  could  misinterpret  a  sentence,  and  even  add  an 
important  word  to  the  oblique  interpretation,  to  make  the  effect 
more  certain.  Mr.  Snethen  said,  Mr.  Asbury  took  special  care  to 
get  himself  elected  to  prevent  his  recall  to  England.  The  agent 
makes  him  say,  Mr.  Asbury  took  "special  good  care  to  get  him- 
self elected."  Admitting  at  the  same  time,  that  this  was  not 
necessary  for  securing  to  him  the  distinction  of  being  superintend- 
ent. This  distinction  already  awaited  him,  by  Mr.  Wesley's  ap- 
pointment! 


CHAPTER  X. 

EXTRACTS  FROM   NEHEMIAH   ON  THE    EXPEDIENCY  OF  A  REPRESEN- 
TATION. 

The  paragraph  extracted  from  a  paper,  with  the  signature  of 
Nehemiah,  as  it  is  made  to  read  in  the  Narrative  and  Defence,  is  a 
garbled  fragment.  Thus  separated  from  its  connexion,  it  was  well 
suited  to  their  purpose.  But  when  read  in  its  place,  so  as  to  be 
understood  according  to  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  writer, 
it  is  by  no  means  offensive  to  any  well  informed  reader. 

So  much  of  the  essay  as  is  printed  in  the  Narrative  and  Defence,  is 
put  in  italics  and  restored  to  its  place.  When  it  shall  be  fairly  exam- 
ined, there  is  no  doubt  that  it  will  be  considered  fully  to  justify  itself. 

"We  now  say,  that  it  is  expedient  that  the  local  ministry  and 
laity,  should  be  represented  in  the  General  Conference.  Their 
right  to  be  represented  having  been  already  proved,  it  is  to  the 
question  of  expediency  we  now  confine  ourselves.  When  we  say 
it  is  expedient  that  representation  should  be  allowed,  we  wish  to 
be  understood  as  meaning  that  it  is  fit,  proper,  best  upon  the  whole, 
the  present  state  of  the  connexion  having  been  duly  considered. 
Respecting  representation,  for  this  is  the  point,  at  issue,  thousands 
in  the  church,  in  the  local  ministry  and  among  the  laity,  believe 
they  have  a  right,  an  inalienable  right,  to  be  represented;  and  that 
as  long  as  this  right  is  withheld, .they  are  unjustly  deprived  of  that, 
which  according  to  scripture,  reason  and  primitive  Christian 
usage,  they  ought  to  possess.  Upon  the  other  hand,  those  who 
are  opposed  to  representation,  say,  that  the  friends  of  reform  have 
no  such  rights  as  they  now  lay  claim  to.  It  must  be  remembered, 
however,  the  right  which  is  claimed  is  common,  and  therefore,  when 
they  insist  that  the  friends  of  reform  have  no  such  right,  they  ad- 
mit ipso  facto  that  they  themselves  have  none.  And  if  the  re- 
formers were  permitted  to  exercise  all  the  rights  which  they  claim, 
such  an  acquisition  on  their  part,  could  bring  no  loss  to  their  op- 


105 


ponents,  inasmuch  as  they  have  no  rights  to  lose.  They  would  in 
such  an  event,  be  precisely  where  they  are  now,  having  none  to 
lose,  they  could  lose  none.*  But  this  is  not  the  case  in  the  judg- 
ment of  those  who  wish  a  representation; — they  think  they  have 
such  rights.  They  know  they  have  such  rights.  They  think  and 
say  that  their  rights  are  unjustly  withheld;  and  neither  the  lan- 
guage nor  conduct  of  their  opponents,  can  make  them  believe 
otherwise.  To  continue  to  be  denied  the  enjoyment  of  these 
rights,  will  not  convince  them  that  they  are  not  entitled  to  possess 
them.  To  withhold  them,  under  the  pretext  of  pleasing  those 
who  acknowledge  that  they  themselves  have  no  right  to  be  repre- 
sented, will  not  satisfy  the  reformers,  nor  silence  their  claims.  We 
cannot  see,  then,  how  any  one  can  reasonably,  or  consistently,  op- 
pose another  man's  enjoyment  of  a  right,  a  privilege  or  a  blessing, 
which  he  conscientiously  believes  he  ought  to  possess,  when  that 
enjoyment  will  not  encroach  upon  his  own  rights,  or  subtract  from 
the  sum  of  his  own  happiness. 

As  the  friends  of  reform  believe  they  have  a  right  to  be  repre- 
sented in  the  General  Conference,  is  it  to  be  supposed,  that  they 
will  be  satisfied  with  any  thing  short  of  a  representation?  As  they 
have  such  clear  grounds  that  they  ought  to  be  represented,  and  as 
their  opponents  can  show  nothing  to  the  contrary,  is  it  likely  that 
they  will  be  satisfied  without  it?  It  can  neither  be  concealed  nor 
denied,  that  an  excitement  of  no  ordinary  character,  at  present  ex- 
ists throughout  the  connexion,  and  that  this  excitement  so  far  from 
being  lessened,  is  every  day  gaining  strength  and  becoming  more 
extended.  The  dissatisfaction  which  has  long  existed,  has  begun 
to  show  itself  in  a  systematic  opposition  to  the  present  form  of 
church  government.  The  principles  of  reform,  are  now  beginning 
to  shoot  up,  and  it  is  weakness  in  the  extreme,  to  suppose  they 
will  never  come  to  maturity.  Perhaps  in  some  two  or  three  places, 
they  may  be  a  little  longer  in  the  soil  before  they  spring  up,  or  they 
may  be  stifled  in  the  growth;  but  even  then,  there  will  be  no  cor- 
dial assent  or  hearty  good  will  to  the  present  form  of  church 
government.  And  to  us  it  is  very  evident,  that  there  will  be  no 
peace  in  the  church,  unless  representation  be  allowed,  and  believ- 
ing that  peace  would  follow,  it  is  expedient  that  representation 
should  be  granted. 

We  are  strengthened  in  the  above  opinion  by  considering  the 
character,  the  number,  and  the  influence  of  the  men  who  make 
this  demand.  It  will  be  asked,  who  are  they  that  are  dissatisfied 
with  the  present  form  of  church  government?  And  the  question 
will  be  tauntingly  answered,  perhaps,  as  it  has  been  done  before; 
a  few  restless  and  backslidden  local  preachers.  But  is  this  the 
truth?  We  hope  not.  We  believe  not.  The  local  preachers  who 
are  thus  reproached,  are  not  backsliders.  They  are  men  of  God; 
ministers  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  have  borne  the  burden  and 

•Every  sensible  reader  will  perceive,  that  this  is  a  mere  argumentum  ad 
hominem;  intended  ironically  to  throw  back  upon  the  power  party  their 
own  sayings. 


106 


heat  of  the  day.  Many  of  them  have  spent  the  prime  of  their 
lives  and  the  strength  of  their  years  in  the  cause  of  God,  and  al- 
though they  have  grown  grey  in  the  work  of  the  ministry,  they  are 
still  labouring,  without  fee  or  reward,  to  build  up  the  walls  of  Zion. 
They  are  men  of  holy  lives,  whose  moral  and  ministerial  characters, 
stand  as  as  fair  now  as  they  ever  did,  and  would  suffer  nothing  by 
being  compared  with  the  characters  of  those  who  traduce  them; — 
by  representing  them  in  this  unfavourable  light.  Nor  is  their  num- 
ber small,  nor  their  influence  inconsiderable.  Hundreds  in  the 
ministry  are  dissatisfied  with  that  feature  of  our  church  govern- 
meut,  which  gives  to  the  travelling  ministry  the  exclusive  power 
to  make  laws  for  the  church,  whereby  the  local  ministry  and  the 
laity,  are  excluded  from  a  representation  in  the  General  Confer- 
ence. 

We  would  now,  in  the  fear  of  God,  put  this  question  to  the 
consciences  of  our  readers.    Is  there  no  ground  to  doubt  of  the 
propriety  of  a  system  which  will  give  dissatisfaction  to  so  many 
ministers  of  Jesus  Christ?    Can  it  be  supposed,  that  the  course 
pursued  by  the  opponents  of  Mutual  Rights,  can  be  of  God,  when 
that  course  will  fill  the  hearts  of  so  many  of  his  old  and  tried  ser- 
vants with  such  deep  distress;  especially  when  it  will  be  recollect- 
ed, that  the  aggrieved  would  much  rather  if  possible,  suffer  than 
complain?    Is  it  likely  that  a  plan  founded  upon  injustice  and  pro- 
ductive of  so  many  exquisitely  painful  feelings,  can  meet  with  the 
approbation  of  righteous  Heaven?     We  are  grieved  while  we 
write: — we  are  pained  while  we  contemplate  the  subject  in  its  pro- 
bable termination;  for  we  honestly  believe,  that  many  of  those  de- 
graded ministers,  notwithstanding  their  attachment  to  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church,  think  it  would  be  better  for  them  to  unite 
among  themselves,  to  live  under  an  equitable  form  of  church 
government  the  remainder  of  their  days,  and  leave  such  a  precious 
legacy  to  their  children  after  them,  than  to  continue  where  they 
receive  nothing  but  a  denial  of  their  rights  upon  the  one  hand,  or 
abuse  and  reproach  if  they  complain,  upon  the  other.    Nor  is  the 
discontentment  confined  to  the  local  ministry.    We  believe  thou- 
sand of  the  laity  are  dissatisfied  also.    And  as  the  principles  of  the 
governmeut  of  the  church  shall  have  been  examined  by  them,  their 
numbers  will  increase,  and  their  complaints  will  become  the  louder. 
\\  hat  can  be  expected  under  such  circumstances,  but  that  the  in- 
telligence, the  piety,  and  the  numbers  of  the  discontented  will 
have  an  influence  upon  the  whole  connexion.    What  then  is  to 
be  done?    Is  it  a  proof  of  wisdom  or  goodness,  to  drive  things  to 
the  extreme?    We  think  not.    We  think  it  would  be  far  better  to 
take  some  steps,  to  adopt  some  measures  which  might  conciliate 
the  minds  of  those  who  are  distressed  and  discontented,  and  there- 
by restore  peace  to  the  troubled,  and  preserve  the  integrity  of  the 
body.    The  last  General  Conference  was  the  time  for  the  adoption 
of  such  measures,  but  we  hope  it  is  yet  not  too  late.  Brethren 
seem  still  to  manifest  a  wish  to  remain  within  the  pale  of  the 
church,  if  they  can  do  so  consistently  with  their  views  of  justice; 
and  while  they  remain  it  will  be  much  easier  to  propitiate  them, 
than  to  bring  them  back  if  they  once  depart.    0!  that  we  could 


107 


persuade  those  who  have  it  in  their  power  to  go  forward  in  this 
god-like  work  of  reconciliation.  We  would  beg  and  beseech  them 
for  God's  sake  not  to  turn  their  ear  away  from  the  admonitions  of 
a  brother; — not  to  delay  to  effect  an  object  so  good  and  so  praise- 
worthy. We  would  entreat  them  to  do  something  and  do  it 
speedily,  to  heal  the  wounds  which  have  been  inflicted  upon  our 
bleeding  Zion.  For  the  peace  of  the  church  it  is  expedient  that 
something  should  be  done;  for  we  are  well  persuaded,  that  nnlesspeace 
be  restored,  the  day  is  not  far  distant,  when  many  will  depart  and 
form  a  government  for  themselves.  Can  the  present  rulers  of  our 
church  answer  for  the  consequences?  If  they  will  not  now  take 
one  single  step  to  restore  peace  and  preserve  the  unity  of  the 
church,  will  they  be  free  from  all  blame  in  the  eyes  of  our  sister 
churches?  Yea,  will  they  be  able  to  answer  to  God  for  the  refusal 
or  neglect?  These  we  know  are  solemn  and  weighty  considera- 
tions. We  trust  they  will  have  a  proper  effect  upon  some,  though 
we  are  free  to  confess,  we  fear  they  will  not  upon  all  of  our  travel- 
ling brethren. 

But  let  them  go,  say  some,  this  is  the  very  thing  we  wish,  and 
the  sooner  they  go  the  better.  They  are  only  troublesome  men, 
and  as  long  as  they  remain  in  connexion  with  us,  the  church  will 
have  no  peace.  This  seems  to  be  the  opinion,  at  least  this  is 
the  language  of  some  who  are  opposed  to  representation.  But 
does  this  opinion,  or  this  language,  afford  evidence  of  piety 
or  policy?  If  it  could  be  made  to  harmonize  with  the  spirit  of 
Christianity,  which  we  are  sure  it  cannot,  is  it  consistent  with 
sound  policy?  The  advocates  for  representation  are  right,  or 
they  are  wrong.  If  they  are  right,  their  opponents  must  be 
wrong  in  denying  their  requests,  and  cannot  censure  them  for 
withdrawing  from  the  connexion,  in  case  they  should  do  so. 
Nor  would  the  sin  of  schism,  (if  a  separation  from  a  church,  whose 
government  is  founded  upon  injustice,  can  be  called  schism,)  lie  at 
their  door  but  at  the  door  of  those  who  would  force  them  to  such 
a  measure.  We  shall  suppose,  however,  at  present,  for  the  sake 
of  argument,  that  the  reformers  are  wrong;  that  their  views  of 
church  government  are  erroneous,  and  their  demands  unreasonable. 
What  results  are  likely  to  take  place,  according  to  the  judgment 
and  statement  of  those  who  are  opposed  to  representation?  Why, 
they  say,  if  the  reformers  leave  the  church,  they  will  certainly  leave 
the  Lord,  go  back  into  the  world  and  sin,  and  finally  lose  their 
souls.*  Although  we  are  far  from  believing  that  the  grace  of  God 
is  confined  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  or  that  the  Lord 
would  not  hear  the  prayers  ot  those  who  would  call  upon  him,  and 
keep  them  from  sin,  though  they  might  not  be  of  that  body  of  re- 
ligious professors,  yet,  assuming  their  statement  with  all  its  alarm- 
ing features,  it  will  bear  upon  themselves,  and  not  upon  the  re- 
formers. Merciful  God,  is  it  the  case  that  these  men  can  believe 
what  they  say,  and  yet  not  strive  to  prevent  it.  Is  it  possible  that 
the  opponents  of  representation,  would  rather  souls  should  depart 


*  This  was  said  by  many  of  the  anti  reformers. 


108 


from  the  Lord,  than  that  they  themselves  should  depart  a  hair's 
breadth  from  their  legislative  prerogatives?  Is  it  a  fact,  that  they 
would  rather  souls  should  be  damned  by  thousands,  than  that  are- 
presentation  from  the  local  ministry  and  laity,  should  be  admitted 
into  the  General  Conference?  God  of  love,  can  these  men  possess 
thy  spirit,  enter  into  thy  benevolent  designs  of  saving  souls,  or 
imitate  thy  gracious  example,  who  would  not  change  a  feature  of 
the  government  of  our  church,  which  is  merely  human,  to  prevent 
souls  from  going  to  the  bottomless  pit?  This  is  the  amount  of  the 
argument  in  its  application  to  themselves.  But  we  hope  better 
things  of  them  though  we  thus  write.  What  have  they  done  to  pre- 
vent these  dreadful  evils  which  they  portray  in  such  vivid  colours, 
in  order  to  prevent  the  members  of  our  church  from  becoming  re- 
formers? We  fancy  we  hear  one  say,  I  fail  not  wherever  I  go,  to 
warn  the  people  against  reading  the  Mutual  Rights.  I  fail  not  to 
inform  the  people,  that  the  men  who  edit  that  work  are  "all  burn- 
ing with  a  schismatical  and  fanatical  zeal,''"  and  that  "their  plans 
are  held  in  sovereign  contempt"  by  some  of  those  who  fill  the  highest 
offices  in  our  church.*  This,  to  be  sure,  is  a  short  way  of  answer- 
ing an  argument.  But  is  it  the  way  to  remove  error?  Is  it  the  way 
to  set  us  right  if  we  are  wrong?  Is  it  the  gospel  way  of  converting 
a  soul  from  the  error  of  his  ways?  Or,  is  it  not  rather  the  very 
principle  upon  which  the  inquisition  has  been  established; — first  call 
the  man  heretic,  and  then  it  is  right  and  lawful  to  put  him  on  the 
wheel,  or  burn  him  at  the  stake!! 

In  this  last  statement  we  have  proceeded  upon  the  supposition, 
that  the  reformers  are  wrong.  *  *  *  But,  let  us  suppose,  for  a  mo- 
ment, the  reformers  are  right;  that,  in  asking  for  a  representation, 
they  ask  for  nothing  but  what  is  reasonable  and  just;  that  the  hum- 
ble attitude  they  assume,  evinces  their  love  of  order,  their  respect 
for  their  itinerant  brethren,  and  their  attachment  to  the  Methodist 
institutions;  that  the  length  of  time  they  have  borne  their  priva- 
tions, affords  indubitable  evidence  that  they  are  unwilling  to  leave 
the  pale  of  the  church.  W^e  ask,  notwithstanding  their  long  suf- 
fering and  patience,  is  it  likely  that  they  will  always  remain  in  the 
connexion?" 

"Convinced,  as  they  [the  Reformers']  are,  that  they  have  every  thing 
on  their  side  that  would  justify  them  in  the  sight  of  God,  in  the  eyes 
of  the  world,  and  in  the  demands  of  their  own  consciences,  to  with- 
draw, is  it  to  be  expected  that  they  will  continue  to  submit  to  thosewho 
withhold  their  rights?  To  remain  would  be  hopeless.  To  remain  in 
the  connexion,  would  be  to  remain  to  be  made  the  butt  of  the  contumely, 
and  insult  of  every  one  opposed  to  reform.  If  nothing  be  done  in  fa- 
vour of  the  reformation,  it  will  be  construed  into  a  total  defeat,  and 
will  so  inflame  their  opponents,  as  to  induce  them  to  add  farther  inju- 
ries to  the  grievances  already  felt.  What,  then,  can  the  Reformers 
promise  themselves  by  continuing  in  the  connexion,  in  the  event  of  a 
total  denial  of  their  claims?  Can  they  promise  themselves  peace? 
Peace,  they  will  hate  none.    Can  they  hope  that,  by  continuing  to 


*  This  was  said  or  written,  by  one  of  the  Bishops. 


109 


suffer,  justice  will  be  done  them  in  the  end.  Alas!  injustice  like  death, 
has  neither  eyes  to  sec  the  miseries  of  its  subjects,  nor  a  heart  to  feel 
for  the  wounds  which  it  inflicts.  Every  symptom  of  patience,  and 
every  returning'  period,  will  only  encourage  their  ojipressors  to  be 
firmer  in  their  denial,  and  will  induce  them  to  augment  the  distresses  of 
the  distressed.  Can  they,  under  this  view  of  the  subject,  calculate 
upon  the  common  courtesies  and  civilities  of  life?  They  cannot.  For, 
at  the  present,  and  while  the  cause  is  depending,  the  shafts  of  reproach 
are  frequently  hurled  at  them,  even  from  the  pulpit. 

"We  will  now  suppose  that  the  General  Conference,  rigidly  adher- 
ing to  the  present  system,  with  all  its  features  of  injustice,  reject  the 
petitions  which  may  be  presented  for  a  representation.  We  will  sup- 
pose, that  those  friendly  to  an  equitable  church  government,  based  upon 
representation,  will  then  proceed  to  take  such  measures  as  will  be  deem- 
ed necessary  to  form  themselves  into  a  church;  will  not  many  of  our 
best  and  oldest  local  preachers  be  of  that  number?  Will  not  many  of 
the  most  intelligent  and  respectabte  laymen  and  their  families  be  of 
the  number?  Will  not  some  who  are  at  present  in  the  travelling  con- 
nexion, and  who  are  ground,  as  it  were,  between  the  upper  and  nether 
millstones*  on  account  of  their  liberal  sentiments,  be  of  that  number? 
We  have  no  doubt  of  these  things.  How  whole  districts  of  country 
may  be  affected  by  the  formation  of  a  new  connexion,  we  cannot  tell; — 
but,  we  shall  neither  be  surprised  nor  mistaken  in  our  calculation,  if 
societies  were  to  withdraw  by  scores  from  a  church,  whose  ministers,  if 
they  speak  the  truth,  would  rather  see  them  go  into  sin,  and  finally  go 
to  hell,  than  allow  a  representation  in  the  law-making  department  of 
the  church." 

"If  then,  the  unity  of  the  body  in  the  bonds  of  peace  be  at  all 
desirable,  we  say  it  is  expedient  that  representation  should  be  gran- 
ted." 

This  paper  was  considered  one  of  the  most  offensive;  and  the 
extract  in  italics  was  quoted  with  uncommon  interest.  Their  ''re- 
marks" in  the  Narrative  and  Defence  are,  "we  have  here,  a  plain, 
unequivocal  developement,  of  the  ulterior  views  of  the  Union  So- 
ciety. They  are  determined  to  carry  their  measures,  whether  with, 
or  without  the  consent  of  the  majority,  or  leave  the  church."  Ne- 
hemiah  had  said  no  such  thing.  The  paper  in  no  shape  justifies 
such  a  remark.  It  says,  "we  honestly  believe,  that  mem?/  *  *  *  think 
it  would  be  better  for  them  to  unite  among  themselves,  to  live  un- 
der an  equitable  form  of  government,  the  remainder  of  their  days, 
and  leave  such  a  precious  legacy  to  their  children  after  them,  than 
to  continue,  where  they  receive  nothing  but  denial  of  their  rights, 
upon  the  one  hand,  and  abuse  and  reproach,  if  they  complain,  on 
the  other."  And  again,  "we  are  well  persuaded,  that  unless  peace  is 
restored,  the  day  is  not  distant,  when  many  will  depart  and  form  a 
government  for  themselves."  This  expression  of  his  belief  re- 
specting the  thoughts  of  many,  and  his  persuasion  respecting  the 
departure  of  many,  are  presented  as  arguments,  which,  in  his  opin- 

*  Witness,  Messrs.  D.  B.  Dorsey,  and  W.  C.  Pool,  &c. 

15 


110 


ion,  go  to  prove,  that  it  would  be  expedient  to  grant  to  the  people 
a  representation  in  the  legislative  department  of  the  church.  No 
candid  man  of  sound  judgment,  will  admit  that  any  thing  more  was 
intended.  It  should  be  kept  in  mind  too,  that  it  was  well  known 
to  us  all,  that  many  had  seceded  and  arrangements  were  making 
by  the  Methodist  Societies,  to  organize  themselves.  To  this  we 
were  opposed,  because  we  were  persuaded,  that  by  means  of  our 
periodical  and  Union  Societies,  we  should  be  able  in  due  time,  to 
effect  the  necessary  reform  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  by 
the  consent  of  the  majority,  and  not  leave  the  church.  The  power  par- 
ty were  so  apprehensive  of  this,  that  they  determined  to  prevent 
us,  by  effecting  the  destruction  of  the  Mutual  Rights  and  Union 
Societies.  Nehemiah  says,  "convinced  that  they,"  (not  the  Union 
Societies;  these  were  opposed  to  a  secession,)  but  the  many  would 
be  justified  in  the  sight  of  God,  in  the  eyes  of  the  world,  and  in 
the  demands  of  their  own  consciences,  to  withdraw,  is  it  to  be  ex- 
pected, that  they  will  continue  to  submit  to  those  who  withhold 
their  rights?  To  remain  would  be  hopeless  *  *  *  *  would  be,  to  be 
made  the  butt  of  the  contumely  and  insult  of  every  one  opposed  to 
reform,  &,c.  &c.  In  the  event  of  a  total  denial  of  their  claims, 
can  they  promise  themselves  peace?  Peace,  they  will  have  none. 
Can  they  hope  that  by  continuing  to  suffer,  justice  will  be  done 
them  in  the  end?"  &c.  All  this  was  argument,  to  prove  the  expe- 
diency of  granting  a  delegation  to  the  people. 

This  paper  was  published  about  three  years  before  we  were  ex- 
pelled for  publishing  it.  Surely  Nehemiah  was  a  prophet;  and  all 
his  prophecies  about  injustice  and  want  of  eyes  to  see  or  hearts  to 
feel,  were  but  too  soon,  literally  fulfilled.  We  were  unjustly  ex- 
pelled, and  the  Annual  Conference  deliberately  resolved  that  we 
had  no  right  to  complain.  We  were  determined  to  remain,  and 
continue  our  labours  to  convince  the  power  party,  of  the  expedi- 
ency of  granting  a  lay  representation.  But  they  determined  to  ex- 
pel us; — a  very  conclusive  argument  in  proof  of  their  opinion  to 
the  contrary!  ! 

The  writer  of  the  Narrative  and  Defence,  thinking  himself  hid- 
den behind  his  extract,  makes  the  comment  for  the  introduction  of 
which,  this  paper  was  "indicated."  "They  call,"  says  he,  "travel- 
ling preachers  oppressors  of  their  brethren,  and  declare  that  these 
oppressors  have  neither  eyes  to  see  the  "miseries"  of  their  flocks, 
nor  hearts  to  feel  for  their  "wounds,"  nay,  that  they  would  rather 
see  their  flocks  go  into  "six"  and  finally  into  "hell,"  than  accord 
thern  their  rights."  We  deny  the  truth  of  this  comment.  It  is  in 
fact,  an  impudent  attempt  at  imposition.  Nehemiah  had  qualified 
every  strong  statement  contained  in  his  paper.  In  respect  to  that 
above  referred  to,  by  the  Agent,  the  following  is  the  qualification. 
"In  the  event  of  a  total  denial  of  their  claims,"  fyc.  can  they,  (the 
reformers,)  hope,  that  by  continuing  to  suffer,  justice  will  be  done 
them  in  the  end?  He  had  argued  the  justice  of  their  claim  to  re- 
presentation. He  was  endeavouring  to  convince  old  side  men,  that 
it  would  be  best,  safest  upon  the  whole,  to  do  the  reformers  jus- 
tice.   But  supposing  they  should  refuse  to  the  last,  how  would 


Ill 


their  conduct  be  viewed  by  reformers?  They  would  then  conclude 
them  unjust.  When  would  they  come  to  this  conclusion?  "In 
the  event  of  a  total  denial  of  their  claims."  In  that  event,  he  asks, 
can  reformers  hope  that  by  continuing  to  suffer,  justice  will  be  dono 
them  in  the  end?  If  the  total  denial,  the  proper  test  of  their  injus- 
tice be  pronounced,  then  reformers  need  expect  no  more.  For 
alas!  injustice  like  death,  has  neither  eyes  to  see  the  miseries  of 
its  subjects,  nor  a  heart  to  feel  for  the  wounds  which  it  inflicts. 
And  therefore,  when  the  reformers  meet  a  total  denial,  &.c.  they 
will  surely  withdraw.  Now  says  Nehimiah's  argument,  brethren 
do  not  meet  them  with  a  total  denial — do  not  give  this  evidence  of 
injustice  to  provoke  to  such  a  course.  Rather  admit  the  "expedi- 
ency" of  granting  their  petition;  rather  do  them  justice  and  pre- 
vent all  these  evils. 

How  different  this,  which  is  the  true  view  of  the  writer's  design, 
from  the  interpretation  of  the  Agent?  He  first  gives  a  caricature 
of  Nehemiah's  argument; — a  total  misrepresentation  of  his  design, 
and  then  in  view  of  his  own  distorted  picture  he  cries  out,  "gra- 
cious Heaven!  are  these  men  Methodists?  and  are  they  speaking 
of  the  whole  body  of  itinerant  Methodist  preachers?  *  *  *  if  this 
is  the  language  of  love,  what  is  the  language  of  hatred?"  &c. 

We  ask  the  candid  reader,  who  is  the  caluminator  in  this  case? 
Nehemiah,  or  doctor  Bond?  He  has  accused  the  editorial  com- 
mittee of  publishing  a  certain  writer's  remarks,  "knowing  that  they 
were  unfounded,"  and  yet  says  he,  "they  allege  that  they  have  not 
been  charged  with  any  immorality.  They  must  excuse  us  if  we 
entertain  a  different  opinion!"  We  give  him  back  this  gratuity,  as 
very  fitly  applicable  to  his  comment  on  Nehemiah,  and  in  the  se- 
quel shall  find  other  occasions  to  restore  to  him  similar  bounties, 
for  which  we  have  no  use,  and  which  can  be  stored  most  conve- 
niently, in  the  depot  from  which  they  were  originally  taken. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

Extract  of  a  letter  from  the  Union  Society  of  Baltimore,  to  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Union  Society  at  Bedford,  Tennessee. — Mutual  Rights, 
Vol.  hp.  90,91. 

"We  have  for  a  long  time,  been  sufficiently  well  informed  respect- 
ing the  great  dissatisfaction  of  many  intelligent  brethren,  who,  at 
the  same  time  that  they  are  fast  friends  to  the  doctrine  of  holiness, 
[according  to  the  peculiar  manner  of  inculcating  that  doctrine,] 
which  we  have  received  as  a  common  legacy  from  the  great  found- 
ers of  Methodism,  are  nevertheless  unwilling  to  be  tributary  to  the 
perpetuation  of  a  system  of  government,  which,  in  their  opinion,  is 
forging  fetters  for  themselves  and  their  posterity."  Narrative  and 
Defence,  page  47. 

The  reader  will  perceive  at  once,  that  it  was  considered  treasona- 
ble to  publish  an  opinion,  that  the  government  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  if  perpetuated,  has  a  tendency  to  endanger  the 


112 


liberties  of  the  people  under  its  authority.  The  publications  were 
charged  with  inveighing  against  the  discipline; — with  being  abusive 
or  speaking  evil  of  a  part,  if  not  most  of  the  ministers  of  that 
church.  That  the  above  extract  contains  nothing  personal;  that 
it  has  no  reference  to  the  moral  discipline  of  the  church,  is  very 
obvious.  The  writer  ventures  an  opinion,  that  a  church  Govern- 
ment which  has  placed  all  the  legislative,  executive  and  judicial 
power,  in  the  hands  of  the  ministry,  if  perpetuated,  will  eventually 
be  dangerous  to  the  liberties  of  the  people.  For  publishing  this 
opinion,  we  were  expelled,  and  our  prosecutors  cover  themselves 
behind  doctor  Bond's  Narrative  and  Defence,  which  says  it  is  ve- 
hement railing;  it  is  slander  and  misrepi 'esentation."  The  true 
cause  of  their  objection  to  the  extract,  will  be  better  understood 
by  a  reference  to  the  paper  itself  from  which  it  was  garbled. 

Copy  of  a  letter  addressed  to  a  member  of  the  Bedford  Union  Society, 

Tennessee. 

Dear  Brother, 

Your  highly  important  communication,  bearing  date  14th  Sep- 
tember, has  been  received  and  submitted  to  the  consideration  of 
the  Union  Society  of  Methodists  in  this  place.  The  manner  of 
its  reception,  and  the  interest  which  was  manifested  by  the  Society, 
will  appear  upon  a  perusal  of  the  extract  from  the  journal  of  pro- 
ceedings, which  is  enclosed  for  your  information. 

It  was  thought  to  be  every  way  consistent  with  propriety  and 
mutual  confidence,  that  you  should  have  calculated  upon  the  pater- 
nal sympathy  and  support  of  the  Union  Society  of  Baltimore; 
since  it  is  well  known  to  us  all,  that  we  advised  the  measure  which 
has  brought  you  into  difficulty.  And  if  there  were  any  doubts  re- 
specting the  necessity  or  morality  of  the  measure,  the  consequences 
which  have  followed  would  have  a  tendency  to  produce  in  us  very 
painful  regret.  The  fact  however  is  very  far  otherwise.  At  the 
same  time,  that  we  are  deeply  sorrowful  on  account  of  the  trans- 
action which  so  materially  concerns  the  brethren  who  are  involved 
in  its  "exterminating"  design,  our  sorrow  has  reference  also  to 
other  highly  momentous  considerations.  We  are  indeed  grieved 
at  the  affliction  of  our  brethren,  but  much  more  at  being  informed 
that  a  tribunal  has  been  found  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
where  some  of  her  members  have  been  subjected  to  trial  and  ex- 
pulsion, for  doing  that,  which  they  consider  to  be  an  imperious 
duty;  which  no  existing  power  or  authority  had  any  shadow  of 
right  to  forbid,  and  which  must  have  the  approbation  of  the  wisest 
and  best  men  in  these  United  States.  And  so  momentous  is  this 
expression  of  high-handed  measures,  that  if  no  other  instance  or 
occasion  could  be  found  to  give  strength  and  confirmation  to  our 
opinion  respecting  the  necessity  of  reform  in  our  ecclesiastical 
government,  this  one  would  be  sufficient.  But  we  were  fully  satis- 
fied upon  this  point,  before  we  heard  of  your  case,  which  is  one 
instance  only  of  the  manner  in  which  men  in  power  can  put  in 
force  their  influence  and  authority,  when  occasion  and  inclination 
concur.    Of  course,  we  add  it  to  the  account  of  those  facts  and 


113 


circumstances  which  in  our  opinion  most  clearly  show,  that  the 
time  has  arrived  when  the  friends  of  religious  liberty  in  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church,  are  called  upon  to  make  a  firm  stand,  and 
declare  their  sentiments  openly.    If  this  be  not  admitted,  it  fol- 
lows, that  the  Methodist  people  are  bound  silently  and  submissive- 
ly to  acknowledge,  that  it  is  the  right  of  the  itinerant  preachers, 
not  only  to  have  and  to  hold  all  power  and  authority,  but  to  expel 
any  who  dare  to  think  and  speak  otherwise;  and  thus  to  stop  the 
mouths  of  all  who  may  be  inclined  to  put  a  check  to  the  growing 
power,  or  to  recommend  any  measures  of  security  against  its  mal- 
administration.   In  a  word,  it  will  follow,  that  the  itinerant  preach- 
ers have  a  right  to  prevent  all  inquiry  into  the  subject.    We  have 
for  a  long  time,  been  sufficiently  well  informed  respecting  the  great 
dissatisfaction  of  many  intelligent  brethren,  who  at  the  same  time 
that  they  are  fast  friends  to  the  doctrine  of  holiness,  which  we  have 
received  as  a  common  legacy  from  the  great  founders  of  Method- 
ism, are  nevertheless  unwilling  to  be  tributary  to  the  perpetuation 
of  a  system  of  government,  which  in  their  opinion  is  forging  fet- 
ters for  themselves  and  their  posterity.    And  we  have  admired  the 
manner  in  which  many  of  them  have  published  their  arguments, 
intended  to  prove  that  the  existing  monopoly  of  the  legislative  and 
executive  power  of  the  church,  has  had  an  injurious  effect  upon 
the  connexion,  and  threatens  eventually,  to  produce  ruinous  con- 
sequences.   We  have  seen  this  necessary  enterprize  again  and 
again  repeated  by  travelling  preachers  as  well  as  others,  and  no 
step  has  been  taken  to  accuse  or  condemn  any  one,  as  having 
committed  a  breach  upon  the  rule,  which  is  found  in  the  Book  of 
Discipline,  chap.  2,  sec.  vii,  article  3d;    and  which  it  appears 
has  been  arbitrarily  enforced  in  your  section  of  the  country.  In- 
deed, we  have  had  no  fear  upon  this  subject;  and  now  that  we 
have  the  information  furnished  us  by  your  letter,  we  are  at  a  loss 
to  conceive  of  the  conduct  of  the  presiding  elder  and  assistant 
preachers,  who  have  so  rashly  and  extensively  acted  upon  it.  Our 
surprise  is  not  a  little  increased,  when  we  perceive  by  your  com- 
munication, that  the  court  which  sat  upon  your  case,  made  special 
objections  against  that  part  of  your  preamble,  which  was  as  follows, 
viz: — "And  that  this  amendment  should  introduce  an  equilibrium 
into  said  church,  by  admitting  a  representation  from  the  local  min- 
isters and  laymen,  equal  to  that  of  the  itinerant  ministers,  into  all 
assemblies  convened  for  the  purpose  of  making  laws  and  regula- 
tions for  government."    We  cannot  see  how  the  discipline  or 
doctrines  of  the  church  are  censured  or  reproached  by  the  publi- 
cation of  a  desire  or  intention  to  obtain,  if  it  can  be  obtained,  such 
a  change  in  the  government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
as  may  constitute  it  a  representative  government.    Is  it  indeed  a. 
truth,  that  the  discipline  is  reproached  and  scandalized  by  making 
the  fact  notorious,  that  it  does  not  recognize  this  principle  which 
is  so  essential  to  the  liberties  of  the  people?    Then  let  those 
whose  duty  it  is,  put  away  this  reproach,  not  by  compelling  men 
to  keep  silence,  but  by  admitting  the  principle.    For  who  could 
condemn  a  freeman  in  this  land  of  liberty,  for  making  an  open  and 


114 


manly  declaration  concerning  the  importance  or  the  necessity  of 
general  representation,  especially,  when  the  discipline  not  only 
does  not  recognize,  but  in  fact  makes  no  mention  of  it;  or  who 
can  so  effectually  be  guilty  of  scandalizing  the  church,  as  those 
who  sit  in  judgment  and  expel  her  members  for  making  such  a  de- 
claration? 

Surely  such  proceedings  cannot  be  justified  by  the  decision  of 
the  Annual  Conference.  At  any  event  we  have  no  hesitation  in 
giving  it  as  our  opinion,  that  if  the  conference  act  a  becoming 
part,  they  will  reinstate  the  brethren. 

This  letter  needs  no  comment.  It  was  published  in  November, 
1825.  No  papers  were  "indicated"  of  earlier  date,  except  Mr. 
Snethen's  on  church  property,  and  Nehemiah's  on  the  expediency 
of  representation.  They  had  already  expelled  fourteen  of  the 
friends  of  reform,  in  the  state  of  Tennessee,  for  having  taken  mea- 
sures preparatory  to  the  formation  of  an  Union  Society,  that  is,  for 
being  about  to  be  guilty  of  that  great  offence.  That  too  was 
wholesome  and  souxd  discipline!! 


CHAPTER  XII. 

Extract  from  an  answer  to  Querist  by  Bartimeus — alias  Mr.  SJiinn. 

"If  they  (the  travelling  preachers)  go  on,  and  enslave  the  peo- 
ple, the  consequence  will  be,  that  they  will  ultimately  and  inevita- 
bly enslave  themselves  and  their  children  after  them.5'  Narrative 
and  Defence,  page  47.  That  this  extract  was  garbled  with  inten- 
tion to  produce  effect  upon  the  minds  of  men,  "who  had  not  read 
the  Mutual  Rights  at  all,"  will  be  obvious,  so  soon  as  it  shall  be  read 
in  its  proper  connexion  with  the  clause  from  which  it  is  taken.* 

3.  If  tlie  members  of  our  church  have  lieretofore  neglected  to  con- 
sider tlie  principles  of  church  government,  it  is  the  more  necessary 
for  tliem  to  consider  them  now;  especially  as  it  is  assumed  in  the  ar- 
gument, "that  a  particular  rule  which  has  been  in  the  book  of  dis- 
cipline a  great  number  of  years,  constituted  a  particular  engage- 
ment on  the  part  of  each  probationer,  to  remain  silent  in  this  matter." 
Is  the  embargo  taken  off,  when  this  probation  is  out?  Or  is  he 
bound  to  remain  silent,  by  virtue  of  tlie  long  standing  of  this  rule? 
If  the  rule  was  wrong  and  unjust  at  first,  will  it  grow  into  justice 
and  goodness  by  age?  Was  it  the  duty  of  the  members  to  examine 
the  principles  of  government  at  first?  And  because  they  neglected 
their  duty  tlien,  must  t  hey  still  neglect  it?  If  the  age  of  a  wrong  prin- 
ciple Juts  already  nearly  taken  away  tlieir  right  to  do  tlieir  duty,  how, 
necessary  for  them  to  rouse  themselves  to  examinaton,  before  it  shall 
become  still  older,  and  get  entirely  out  of  their  reach.  If  its  age 
has  already  taken  away  part  of  their  rights,  tliere  appears  to  be 
danger  that  it  may  at  last  become  old  enough  to  take  away  tlie  whole 

*  We  have  put  the  whole  clause  in  italics,  and  beg  the  reader  to  mark  well 
how  true  it  is  in  all  its  parts. 


115 


of  them.  Most  of  the  churches  in  Christendom  lutve  the  advantage 
of  the  Methodists ,  in  this  argument;  for  several  of  tliem  are  hun- 
dreds of  years  old:  does  it  follow  then,  that  whatever  may  be  "tlie 
fundamental  principle  of  their  church  polity"  all  Uieir  members  arc 
bound  under  "a  particular  engagement, to  remain  silent  in  this  mat- 
ter?" Then  Luther,  Calvin,  and  Erasmus —  Wesley,  Fletcher,  and 
Whitefield,  were  each  under  "a  particular  engagement"  and  this 
engagement  was  "constituted"  by  the  long  standing  of  the  principles 
which  tliey  opposed,  "to  remain  silent  in  this  matter." 

'■'Complete  and  absolute  authority  on  the  part  of  the  itinerancy" 
it  is  said,  "has  never  been  departed  from,"  and  is  the  "fundamental 
principle  of  our  church  polity."  We  think  our  church  ought  to 
have  better  "fundamental  principles."  But  suppose  Mr.  Jisbury 
had  succeeded  in  his  council  plan — then  a  bishop's  council  would 
have  been  the  fundamental  principle  of  our  church  polity,  and  we 
should  have  had  no  general  conference.  And  how  was  the  funda- 
mental principle  altered,  when  that  conference  was  made  representa- 
tive? If  we  enlarge  tlie  sphere  of  representation,  and  establish  a 
better  constitution,  will  this  destroy  the  fundamental  principle?  or, 
will  it  not  rather  exchange  one  very  defective  principle,  for  several 
valuable  axioms  in  church  government,  that  are  truly  and  scriptur* 
ally  fundamental? 

Having  thus,  we  think,  refuted  the  argument,  the  following  short 
refections  may  be  added. 

For  the  people  to  examine  the  principles  of  church  government, 
and  to  assist  each  other  in  the  examination,  is,  first,  their  duty:  for 
God  has  made  them  rational  creatures;  church  government  is  insti- 
tuted for  their  sake,  and  for  the  sake  of  displaying  the  divine  glory, 
therefore  they  are  under  obligation  to  examine,  and  see  whether  these 
ends  are  effectually  answered  by  the  government.  The  argument  we 
have  been  examining,  supposes  it  to  have  been  the  duty  of  all  the 
members,  to  make  themselves  acquainted  with  the  government,  when 
they  first  joined  society:  well,  if  they  then  neglected  their  duty,  let 
them  not  neglect  it  eternally.  Secondly,  it  is  their  wisdom:  for  what 
but  folly  can  it  be,  for  any  people  to  remain  in  stupid  unconcern 
and  ignorance  of  the  government  under  which  they  live?  Is  this  to 
act  the  part  of  rational  creatures?  Thirdly,  it  is  essential  to  their 
safety:  for  if  a  people  leave  to  others,  to  manage  the  affairs  of  govern- 
ment over  their  heads,  while  they  themselves  remain  ignorant  and 
unconcerned  about  tlie  whole  matter,  in  the  name  of  common  sense, 
what  security  have  they  for  their  liberty  or  happiness  a  single  hour? 
In  the  argument  we  have  considered,  we  see  it  assumed  that  a  govern- 
ment acquires  authority  by  age;  and  nothing  but  ignorance  or 
thoughtlessness  can  hinder  the  Methodist  people  from  perceiving, 
that  they  are  liable  to  lose  the  dearest  rights  of  humanity^  by  abso- 
lute principles  in  the  church,  as  well  as  in  the  state.  Who,  but  a 
people  that  are  tamely  loilling  to  be  slaves,  are  willing  to  remain  ig- 


116 


norant  of  their  own  government,  or  to  leave  tlie  whole  matter  to  the 
management  of  others?  Fourthly,  it  is  essential  to  the  welfare  of  the 
church:  for  if  her  principles  are  sound,  they  will  shine  the  brighter 
by  being  examined,  and  will  be  the  more  firmly  established  in  the  con- 
fidence of  the  people;  if  any  of  them  are  unsound,  the  removal  of 
those  which  are  so,  will  be  a  real  benefit  and  an  honour  to  the  whole 
church.  Fifthly,  it  is  essential  to  the  welfare  and  happiness  of  the 
travelling  ministry:  for  if  they  go  on,  and  enslave  the  people,  the 
consequence  will  be,  that  they  will  ultimately  and  inevitably  enslave 
themselves  and  their  children  after  them:  therefore,  a  wholesome 
authority  of  "check  and  control"  in  the  body,  is  essential  to  the 
real  interest  and  happiness  of  uthe  ruling  power." 

To  conclude:  the  persevering  efforts  and  struggles  we  liave  beheld, 
to  enjoin  silence  on  preachers  and  people,  furnish  a  strong  presump- 
tion of  something  unsound  at  bottom,  and  would  be  really  alarming, 
were  it  not  for  the  protection  afforded  by  the  civil  government  under 
which  we  live:  and  every  day's  experience  tends  to  increase  tlie  con- 
viction, that  no  persons  among  us,  but  those  who  resolve,  in  the  name 
of  God,  to  act  upon  principle,  will  be  found  qualified  to  act  as  per- 
severing reformers. 

Bartimeus. 

Pittsburg,  June  14,  1826. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

Extract  from  a  letter  to  the  Editors  of  the  Mutual  Rights,  forwarded 
from  Alexandria,  District  Columbia. 

"Is  it  not  a  possible  case,  that  some  of  our  rulers  may  be  look- 
ing forward  to  an  establishment,  especially  as  they  claim  a  divine 
right  to  absolute  government  over  those  whom  they  have  been  the 
instruments  of  converting  from  the  error  of  their  ways;  and  truly, 
if  they  have  this  divine  right,  they  should  have  it  established  by  law, 
to  keep  the  restless  spirits  down."  Narrative  and  Defence,  page  47. 
This  extract  is  taken  from  a  paper  which  is  sufficiently  explained 
by  a  reference  to  the  provocation  which  gave  it  birth  and  justified 
it.  See  Mutual  Rights,  page  46,  vol.  III.  "I  take  the  liberty 
of  enclosing  you  a  paper  in  the  form  of  a  remonstrance,  said 
to  have  been  drawn  up  by  George  Mason,  of  Virginia,  and 
presented  to  the  legislature,  shortly  after  the  revolution;  thereby 
defeating  a  bill,  then  before  the  house,  intended  to  establish  some 
religious  sect.  Although  the  present  controversy  is  not,  whether 
we  shall  have  an  establishment  or  not,  yet  there  are  some  things, 
that  may  be  drawn  from  the  remonstrance,  that  may  be  rendered 
useful  to  the  cause  of  reform.  "Is  it  not  a  possible  case,  that  some 
of  our  rulers  may  be  looking  forward  to  an  establishment,  especially 
as  they  claim  a  divine  right  to  absolute  government,  over  those  whom 


117 


they  have  been  the  instruments  of  converting  from  the  error  of  their 
ways;  and  truly,  if  they  have  this  divine  right,  they  should  have  it 
established  by  law,  to  keep  the  restless  spirits  down.n  The  preachers 
here,  are  not  mealy  mouthed  in  saying,  that  they  are  invested  with 
the  high  authority  of  making  laws  for  the  church,  and  they  ask  nothing 
of  the  people,  because  they  are  not  accountable  to  them  for  any  of  their 
acts.  If  such  principles  are  to  be  silently  instilled  into  the  minds 
of  men,  until  the  Methodists  shall  have  members  sufficient;  with 
the  present  form  of  church  government,  what  are  we  to  expect 
from  them,  but  to  enforce  obedience  to  the  laws  of  the  holy 
church?  Even  now,  they  endeavour  to  deter  us  from  reading  the 
Mutual  Rights,  by  saying  it  is  wicked,  and  that  the  reformers  have 
lost  their  religion.  Our  preacher  and  our  presiding  elder,  strongly 
intimated,  and  that  from  the  pulpit,  that  "the  reformers  are  influ- 
enced by  the  devil."  After  a  public  assault  of  this  sort,  the 
brother  at  Alexandria,  reacted,  so  far  only,  as  to  forward  to  the 
editors  of  the  Mutual  Rights,  the  paper  above  referred  to,  said  to 
have  been  written  by  Mr.  Mason,  of  Virginia,  accompanying  it 
with  this  brief  account  of  the  occasion  which  had  induced  him  to 
request  its  publication.  We  thought  it  a  sufficiently  mild  rebuke 
for  the  preacher  and  presiding  elder.  The  occasion  seemed  to  the 
editorial  committee,  to  call  for  it;  not  so  much  to  protect  reform 
from  such  rude  assaults,  as  to  save  the  church  from  the  scandal  of 
being  subjected  to  the  instruction  and  rule  of  men,  who  appeared 
to  have  so  little  regard  to  their  own  dignity,  and  still  less  respect 
to  the  feelings  of  those,  who  honestly  differed  from  them  in  opinion 
upon  the  subject  of  church  government.  If  we  were  not  at 
liberty  to  publish  such  a  rebuke,  in  reply  to  an  accusation  of  being 
influenced  by  the  devil  and  destitute  of  religion,  surely  we  "had 
fallen  upon  evil  timess" 


CHAPTER  XIV, 
Mr.  Joseph  Walker's  letter  to  the  Editorial  Committee. 

Alabama,  Dallas  County,  May  10th,  1826. 

Dear  Brethren, 

"A  few  days  ago,  a  friend  put  five  or  six  numbers  of  the  Mu- 
tual Rights  into  my  hand,  to  read.  It  gave  me  heartfelt  satisfaction 
to  know,  that  the  spirit  of  reformation  is  at  work  in  our  favoured 
country,  and  especially,  that  it  has  begun  in  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  where  it  is  so  much  needed.  When  we  look  back 
and  think  of  the  privations,  and  sufferings,  and  fightings,  through 
which  our  fathers  struggled  in  the  revolutionary  war,  for  the  at- 
tainment of  civil  liberty,  and  religious  mutual  rights,  and  then  turn 
round  and  see  all  the  principles  of  liberty  trampled  upon,  by  our 
travelling  preachers,  in  the  conferences  and  in  their  administration 
of  church  government,  it  is  enough  to  grieve  a  heart  of  stone.' '  We 


118 


can  see  nothing  in  Mr.  Walker's  letter  from  its  commencement  to 


Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  their  conferences,  and  in  their  ad- 
ministration of  church  government.  But  is  this  not  true?  The  peo- 
ple and  local  preachers  have  no  participation  in  the  deliberative  or 
legislative  acts  of  the  conferences;  and  the  legislative,  judicial  and 
executive  powers,  are  all  in  the  hands  of  the  travelling  preachers. 
When  it  is  considered  that  the  great  and  fundamental  principles  of 
civil  liberty,  are  well  understood  by  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
whilst  at  the  same  time  the  travelling  preachers  appear  totally  to 
disregard  them,  in  their  conferences  and  in  the  administration  of 
church  government;  we  cannot  perceive  that  Mr.  Walker's  state- 
ment is  at  all  inconsistent  with  truth,  or  that  his  language  is  too 
strong,  when  he  says  the  principles  of  liberty  are  trampled  upon  by 
the  travelling  preachers.  This  however  was  a  very  conspicuous 
part  of  the  alleged  slander  for  the  publication  of  which  we  were  ex- 
pelled. 

"I  can  but  weep  to  see  our  Zion  so  oppressed."    The  old  patriot 
seems  to  have  understood  the  subject  upon  which  he  wrote.  He 
had  read  the  paper  on  church  rights.    He  had  learned  "that  chris- 
tian freedom  is  as  truly  the  right  of  the  church,  as  it  is  the  right  of 
the  state," — that  "an  association  of  millions  of  christians,  under  a 
civil  government  of  their  own  choice,  would  not  constitute  a  free 
christian  community."    That  no  community  could  be  free,  whilst 
it  is  controlled  by  absolute  rules; — that  it  could  not  "be  safe,  should 
those  rules  intentionally  or  otherwise,  give  a  wrong  direction  to  the 
multitude."    He  knew,  that  it  was  asserted  by  many,  in  and  out  of 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  that  the  principles  and  actual 
powers  of  that  system  of  church  government,  may  be  compressed 
into  one  short  sentence.    "  All  power  must  be  in  the  hands  of  the 
preachers;  none  in  those  of  the  members  of  the  church."    He  knew, 
"that  the  powers  of  the  travelling  preachers  in  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  are  as  plenary  as  it  is  possible  for  them  to  be; — that 
they  can,  not  only  legislate  for  the  church  without  the  consent  of 
the  people  or  of  the  local  preachers,  but  according  to  their  disci- 
pline, and  their  latest  report  on  the  subject  of  their  powers,  they 
can  make  and  unmake  a  constitution.    He  considered  it  a  very  se- 
rious concern,  that  such  amazing  prerogatives  should  be  lodged  in 
the  hands  of  a  few  travelling  preachers.    He  was  informed,  that  a 
vast  amount  of  suffering  and  discontent  were  annually  generated 
under  the  existing  regime,  and  that  there  was  cause  to  fear,  that  the 
minds  of  many,  would  become  impatient  of  the  irritating  cause. 
Therefore  said  he,  "I  can  but  weep  to  see  our  Zion  so  oppressed." 
I  am  the  son  of  an  old  patriot  of  Pennsylvania.    I  have  been  a 
preacher  in  the  Methodist  Episcopil  Church  for  more  than  twenty 
years;  have  been  ordained,  Deacon  and  Elder.    My  house  has  been 
all  that  time,  a  place  of  retreat  and  rest  for  the  travelling  preach- 
ers, and  of  constant  resort  for  the  brethren.    Having,  therefore, 
had  frequent  opportunities,  I  have  intimated  to  bishops,  presiding 


119 


elders  and  travelling  preachers,  the  propriety  and  necessity  of  re- 
form. They  have  commonly  replied,  it  might  be  right,  perhaps, 
and  that  those  who  wished  reform,  could  withdraw,  whenever  they 
might  see  proper.  I  was  led  to  pause!  I  pondered  within  myself! 
Oh,  the  depth  of  spiritual  wickedness,  apparently,  in  high  places! 
Oh,  the  curse  of  ingratitude!  Good  Heavens!  thought  I,  filled  with 
astonishment!  How  many  hundreds  of  dollars  have  I  and  many 
others  spent,  for  the  exclusive  use  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  She  has  been  our  constant  care,  and  for  her  we  have  la- 
boured twenty  years  and  more,  and  never  have  received  one  dollar 
of  reward.  Indeed,  some  of  us,  like  the  Apostle  Paul,  would 
rather  have  died,  than  have  been  deprived  of  this  our  glorying  in 
the  cross  of  Christ,  And  after  all,  if  we  object  to  our  condition  of 
living  under  continual  oppression  and  privation,  we  may  go  out 
of  society,  in  search  of  relief!  And  if  we  should  take  them  at  their 
word  and  go,  then  our  characters  would  be  destroyed.  Nothing 
would  save  us  from  reproach,  if  we  cease  to  be  called  by  this  name." 
Who  that  is  at  all  acquainted  with  the  Methodist  preachers  and  the 
late  expulsions  and  subsequent  treatment  of  reformers,  can  doubt 
the  truth  of  any  part  of  Mr.  Walker's  statement?  Indeed  the  whole 
is  too  true,  and  accords  exactly  with  what  occurred  here  in  Balti- 
more. And  can  any  man  of  dignified  feelings  be  surprised  or  of- 
fended at  the  good  old  man's  soliloquy.  He  felt  himself  an  Ame- 
rican citizen.  He  felt  his  right  as  a  member  and  minister  of  the 
church  of  Christ,  and  as  one  of  Christ's  freemen,  to  suggest  to  the 
members  of  the  legislature; — the  "bishops,  presiding  elders,  and 
travelling  preachers,"  the  propriety  of  making  some  improvement 
in  their  code  of  laws.  Instead  of  treating  him  with  common  de- 
cency, they  let  him  know,  if  he  did  not  cease  to  trouble  them,  he 
might  have  leave  to  withdraw.  "Oh!"  said  he  to  himself,  "Oh,  the 
depth  of  spiritual  wickedness,  &c!"  Oh,  the  curse  of  ingratitude, 
&c.  &c.  Notwithstanding  all  his  beneficence,  care  and  toil  for 
the  promotion  of  the  interests  of  the  church,  he  must  not  open  his 
mouth.  If  he  dare  to  complain,  he  must  withdraw.  And  because 
we  had  the  effrontery  to  publish  the  old  oppressed  brother's  letter, 
as  if  to  give  a  thundering  confirmation  of  the  truth  of  the  whole 
matter,  the  agents  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  expelled  us, 
here  in  Baltimore,  and  in  other  places,  and  to  destroy  our  charac- 
ters tell  the  world  they  only  exercised  wholesome  discipline,  with 
design  to  "defecate  the  church"  of  the  authors  and  abetters  of 
slander,  "of  speaking  evil  of  ministers!!" 

"I  was  personally  acquainted  with  Bishop  Asbury.  I  have  heard 
him  converse  with  the  Rev.  Hope  Hull,  who  was  a  friend  to  re- 
form; and  I  easily  collected  the  information,  that  our  church  go- 
vernment was  framed  chiefly  by  subjects  of  Great  Britain.  Of 
course,  I  never  wondered  much,  that  such  men  should  have  shaped 
their  code,  and  made  their  ecclesiastical  laws,  according  to  their 
own  model.  But  when  I  consider,  that  nearly  all  our  present 
preachers  are  Americans;  when  I  consider  how  excellent  and  pow- 
erful is  the  republican  spirit,  which  prevails  in  these  United  States, 
and  how  equal  the  civil  laws  under  which  we  live.    When  I  see 


120 


how  carefully  our  civil  and  religious  liberties  are  secured  to  the 
people  of  every  possible  variety  of  denominations,  I  am  compelled 
to  ask  the  question,  is  not  the  form  of  our  church  government  and 
the  manner  in  which  it  is  administered,  an  open  insult  to  the  con- 
stitution of  the  United  States?  It  surely  is,  and  were  it  fully  in- 
vestigated and  exposed  to  public  view,  such  a  despotic  institution 
would  make  a  bad  appearance  before  the  observation  of  a  religious 
republic."  We  consider  the  condemnation  of  this  truly  patriotic 
paper,  as  one  of  the  strongest  evidences  of  the  necessity  of  reform 
in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  The  publication  of  this  plain 
and  true  exposition  of  the  principles  of  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  government  constituted  an  offence  of  the  first  magnitude. 
And  who  will  wonder  at  this,  when  it  shall  be  understood,  that  some 
of  the  same  men  who  were  engaged  in  the  prosecution,  have  de- 
voted themselves  to  the  service  of  the  same  government,  and  engag- 
ed in  conducting  a  periodical  to  prove  ''that  in  constituting  this 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  government,  for  the  citizens  of  our 
free  republican  country,  the  preachers  from  England  had  a  right, 
and  were  solemnly  enjoined  by  the  Scriptures,  and  the  actual  con- 
dition of  things,  to  give  all  power  to  an  itinerant  ministry; — that 
bishops  ought  to  have  absolute  power  to  appoint  the  preachers  to 
their  labours,  and  to  change  them  every  year,  or  not,  as  the  bishops 
may  please; — that  these  bishops  have  also  a  right  to  make  sub- 
bishops  over  the  preachers,  and  remove  these  sub-bishops  when 
they  choose; — that  itinerant  preachers  alone  ought  to  compose 
Annual  Conferences; — that  they  alone  ought  to  be  represented  and 
be  the  representatives  of  one  another,  in  composing  the  General 
Conference: — and  that  this  general  representative  body,  composed 
of  itinerant  preachers  only,  representing  one  another  after  this 
manner,  ought  to  make  and  administer  the  rules  of  moral  disci- 
pline, and  hold  the  titles  to  all  church  property; — that  the  itinerants 
ought  to  appoint  to  all  offices,  or  authorize  and  prescribe  the  mode 
of  all  appointments;  select  all  committees  for  the  trial  of  alleged 
immoralities,  and  preside  at  the  trials.  In  a  word,  that  itinerant 
preachers  ought  to  be  absolute  in  power,  and  the  people  be  in  ab- 
solute subjection."  Surely  all  wise  and  candid  men  will  admit, 
that  an  honest  and  blunt  man  of  the  days  of  seventy-six,  said  truly, 
that  such  an  institution,  set  up  in  these  United  States,  is  "an  open 
insult  to  the  constitution." 

"The  power  of  the  Itinerancy  in  this  part  of  the  country,  is  al- 
ready in  a  trembling  condition."  This  certainly  was  true  as  far  as 
Mr.  Walker's  acquaintance  extended:  "all  that  is  necessary,  is,  for 
the  people  to  be  freed  from  the  terrors  of  the  gag-law."  This 
was  a  very  offensive  sentence.  It  calumniates  the  discipline  by 
calling  one  of  its  provisions  the  gag-law.  It  is  nevertheless  true. 
And  the  expulsion  of  reformers  in  Baltimore,  Cincinnati,  North 
Carolina,  Tennessee,  and  Lynchburg,  &lc.  &c.  will  remain  a  per- 
petual memorial  of  the  true  spirit  and  intention  of  the  rule  against 
inveighing,  &,c. — that  it  is  intended  to  stop  the  mouths  of  all  mem- 
bers of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  who  may  chance  to  feel 
any  objection  to  the  absolute  power  of  the  itinerant  preachers. 


121 


"The  people  generally,  think  rightly  if  they  only  dare  speak  out. 
For  my  part,  I  was  born  in  the  year  1776,  and  a  warm  current  of 
the  blood  of  freemen,  runs  through  my  veins.  I  delight  to  enter- 
tain a  just  sense  of  man's  equal  rights  in  church  and  state."  This 
sentence  we  will  presume,  led  the  Agent  to  insinuate  that  Mr.  Wal- 
ker wanted  good  ''manners."  To  talk  about  the  blood  of  freemen 
and  equal  rights  in  church  and  state!  what  clownish  insolence! 
"My  son-in-law,  Ebenezer  Hern,  is  now  and  for  several  years  has 
been,  a  presiding  elder  in  the  Mississippi  Conference;  and  my 
oldest  son,  R.  L.  Walker,  is  a  travelling  preacher  in  the  same  con- 
ference. These  facts  serve  with  other  considerations,  as  you  may 
suppose,  to  make  me  more  solicitous  for  a  change  in  our  church 
government.  For  I  do  not  wish  to  see  any  of  my  family,  have  a 
part  in  holding  the  reins  of  a  government,  which  is  administered  in 
unrighteousness."  That  is,  in  violation  of  the  plain  principles  of 
justice  and  equal  rights.  The  objection  is  specifically  against  the 
government.  His  son-in-law,  a  presiding  elder,  his  oldest  son  a 
travelling  preacher.  Both  participating  in  holding  the  reins  of  the 
government,  which  in  his  opinion,  is  administered  in  unrighteous- 
ness, because  its  powers  and  privileges  are  unequally  distributed; — 
because  the  power  of  the  travelling  preachers  is  absolute,  and  the 
people  and  local  preachers  are  made  subject  to  their  power;  and 
by  the  law  against  inveighing  are  forbidden  to  complain. 

"There  are  many  things  which  I  would  be  glad  to  communicate. 
But  I  am  aware,  that  my  zeal  in  so  good  a  cause,  after  having  been 
so  long  suppressed,  may  be  in  danger  of  rising  too  high.  I  must, 
therefore,  come  to  a  close." 

"I  send  you  ten  dollars.  You  will  be  so  good  as  to  send  me  one 
copy  of  your  first  volume; — if  convenient,  send  it  bound.  Also, 
six  copies  of  your  second  volume.  I  have  procured  no  subscri- 
bers for  them,  as  yet;  but  I  will  see  to  it,  that  they  shall  be  well 
circulated."  This  last  clause,  we  conclude,  was  particularly  offen- 
sive. It  told  of  a  contribution  of  ten  dollars,  towards  the  exten- 
sion of  Mutual  Rights.  It  promised  diligence,  in  giving  a  good 
circulation  to  the  volumes  which  he  had  ordered  to  be  forwarded. 
He  was  in  earnest,  and  his  spirit  was  too  independent,  to  escape 
the  notice  and  resentment  of  the  Agent  and  prosecuting  commit- 
tee. But  what  is  so  offensive  to  these  friends  of  clerical  power, 
our  printing  committee  considered  every  way  commendable  in  a 
good  citizen; — a  proper  expression  of  the  feelings  of  Christ's  free- 
men, who  in  obedience  to  their  Lord,  refuse  to  call  any  man  master. 

"Any  use  you  may  think  fit  to  make  of  these,  my  remarks,  will 
have  my  approbation.  I  try  to  live  before  God,  independent  of  the 
frowns  or  smiles  of  men.  My  name  is  Joseph  Walker,  my  place 
of  residence  is  Dallas  county,  state  of  Alabama."  Too  indepen- 
dent to  be  an  acceptable  member  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church! 

"I  will  conclude  with  saying,  that  in  the  whole  extent  of  my 
reading,  in  ancient  or  modern  history,  I  have  not  met  with  any  no- 
tice of  a  single  order  of  people,  except  the  Roman  Catholics  and 
Methodists,  whose  preachers  convene  without  the  consent  of  the 


122 


people,  make  laws  for  the  government  of  the  people,  and  after- 
wards turn  round  and  execute  those  laws.  I  have  been  wide  awake 
to  the  cause  of  reform,  fifteen  years  or  more.  But  the  subject  not 
being  popular,  I  have  been  compelled  to  speak  of  it,  only  in  confi- 
dence. Men  of  the  best  minds  in  our  itinerancy,  are  of  the  same 
opinion.  How  can  it  be  otherwise?  But  supremacy  and  self-pre- 
servation keep  most  of  them  silent.  Let  us  be  faithful  to  God,  and 
the  cause  of  equal  rights  in  the  world,  will  be  secured  without  firing 
a  gun  or  shedding  of  blood." 


CHAPTER  XV. 

The  minutes  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  prove,  that  the  pre- 
paratory measures  which  served  to  establish  the  power  of  the  bishops 
and  travelling  preachers  in  the  United  States,  were  tainted  with 
acts  of  usurpation. 

In  Mr.  Walker's  letter,  a  reference  is  made  to  the  origin  of  the 
government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  We  will,  there- 
fore, present  to  our  readers,  a  few  things  not  generally  known,  or 
if  known,  now  generally  forgotten,  which  will  prove,  that  Mr.  Wal- 
ker's remarks  are  true  and  justifiable.  They  will  serve,  moreover, 
to  prepare  for  the  reading  of  Luther,  in  his  turn,  whose  paper  is 
represented  by  the  writer  of  the  Narrative  and  Defence,  to  consist 
of  the  ravings  of  a  madman. 

We  learn  from  the  general  minutes,  that  the  first  Methodist  Con- 
ference in  America,  was  held  in  Philadelphia,  in  the  year  1773. 
The  minute  says,  this  Conference  consisted  of  ten  travelling 
preachers.  A  careful  examination  of  the  subject,  has  convinced  us 
that  six  only,  and  these  all  Englishmen,  were  the  acting  members 
of  the  Conference;  Thomas  Rankin,  George  Shadford,  John  King, 
Francis  Asbury,  Richard  Wright  and  Robert  Williams.  Lee's  his- 
tory says,  this  conference  consisted  of  six  or  seven  travelling 
preachers.  The  apparent  uncertainty,  about  six  or  seven,  grew 
out  of  the  fact,  that  the  name  of  Robert  Strawbridge,  an  Irishman, 
and  successful  local  preacher,  of  Pipe  Creek,  Frederick  county, 
Maryland,  is  placed  on  the  minute,  as  if  one  of  their  body.  In  the 
minute  of  1774,  his  name  is  not  found.  In  the  year  1775,  he  ap- 
pears to  have  been  stationed  in  his  own  county.  After  that  date, 
his  name  is  no  more  to  be  seen.  With  Mr.  Lee,  therefore,  we 
doubt  the  propriety  of  reckoning  more  than  six.  The  remaining 
three,  William  Waters,  Abraham  Whitworth,  and  Joseph  Yearby, 
were  young  men  received  that  year  on  trial,  and  admitted  into  the 
connexion  the  following  year.  The  six  English  preachers,  with 
Robert  Strawbridge,  the  local  preacher,  including  the  three  young 
men,  make  up  the  account  of  ten,  as  constituting  the  conference. 
Before  this  conference  of  six,  or  seven  British  subjects,  three  great 
questions  were  proposed  and  answered; — answered,  it  would  seem, 
by  the  six  Englishmen    It  would  have  been  useless  for  Mr.  Straw- 


123 


bridge,  to  have  objected  to  their  views:  and  it  is  not  probable,  that 
any  one  of  the  three  young  men,  just  received  on  trial,  was  pre- 
pared to  look  forward  to  ultimate  consequences,  or  to  make  objec- 
tions to  the  resolutions  of  those,  from  whom  they  were  ready  to 
receive  instruction. 

The  first  question  was,  "ought  not  the  authority  of  Mr.  Wesley, 
and  that  Conference,  to  extend  to  the  preachers  and  people  in  Ame- 
rica, as  well  as  in  Great  Britain  and  Ireland.*  In  couse,  the  Eng- 
lish preachers  answered,  yes.  And  the  remaining  four  thought  of 
no  other  answer. 

The  societies  at  that  time  amounted  to  eleven  hundred  and  sixty. 
But  they  had  no  part  in  the  transaction.  The  six,  or  seven,  or  ten 
preachers  determined  for  them  and  all  others  who  might  afterwards 
be  disposed  to  unite  with  them,  that  the  whole  of  them  should  be 
subject  to  "the  authority  of  Mr.  Wesley,  and  that  Conference." 

The  second  great  question  proposed  was:  "ought  not  the  doc- 
trine and  discipline  of  the  Methodists,  as  contained  in  the  minutes, 
to  be  the  sole  rule  of  our  conduct,  who  labour  in  the  connex- 
ion with  Mr.  Wesley,  in  America?"  To  this  question  they  all  an- 
swered, "yes."  Reformers  think,  the  word  of  God  ought  to  have 
been  the  sole  rule  of  their  conduct,  and  not  "the  command- 
ments of  men."  By  the  first  question  and  answer,  they  had  "as- 
sumed" the  prerogative,  to  subject  all  the  American  preachers  and 
people,  who  had  associated  as  Methodists,  and  all  who  might  be  in- 
clined to  unite  with  them,  to  "the  authority  of  Mr.  Wesley,  and  that 
conference."  By  the  second  question  and  answer,  they  "assumed" 
the  high  prerogative  of  prescribing  to  all  American  Methodist 
preachers  the  "sole  rule  of  their  conduct." 

The  third  great  question,  which  was  proposed  as  being  infera- 
ble from  the  two  preceding,  evinces  their  despotic  character  and 
design;  and  reads  as  follows,  viz:  "If  so,  does  it  not  follow,  that 
if  any  preachers  deviate  from  the  minutes,  we  can  have  no  fellow- 
ship with  them  till  they  change  their  conduct?"  To  this  again  they 
answered,  "yes."  Now  to  place  these  proceedings  in  their  pro- 
per light,  let  it  be  recollected,  that  the  Methodist  Societies  under 
the  authority  of  Mr.  Wesley,  in  England,  &c.  did  not  constitute  a 
church,  separate  and  distinct  from  the  estsblished  church  of  Eng- 
land; they  were  generally  made  up  of  members  of  the  church. 
Mr.  Wesley,  was  a  regularly  ordained  presbyter  of  the  national 
establishment.  It  was,  therefore,  a  very  large  "assumption"  of  au- 
thority in  the  case  of  Mr.  Wesley  himself,  in  Great  Britain,  to  re- 
quire the  submission  of  a  people,  under  the  pastoral  care  of  other 
ministers.  But  when  these  six  Englishmen  crossed  the  Atlantic, 
assembled  themselves  in  Philadelphia,  and  placing  themselves  un- 
der the  ban  of  Mr.  Wesley's  authority  in  England,  asserted  their 
intention  to  rule  over  all  the  Methodist  preachers  and  societies 
then  existing,  or  that  might  ever  afterwards  have  an  existence  in 
America; — this  was  "framing  a  church  government,  it  was  shaping 


*  This  was  the  first  formal  assumption  of  these  high  prerogatives. 


124 


a  code  and  making  ecclesiastical  laws,  according  to  their  own 
model,"  sure  enough.    Our  brother  Walker's  view  is  correct. 

The  authority  of  this  first  conference,  commenced  as  above  stat- 
ed, and  the  dictatorial  attitude  which  these  six  Englishmen  then 
assumed,  was  so  continued  and  made  efficient  in  the  training  and 
management  of  the  young  preachers  raised  up  in  America,  and  in 
the  formation  and  drilling  of  the  societies  through  their  instru- 
mentality, that  within  the  term  of  little  more  than  twelve  years, 
things  were  in  readiness  for  the  formation  of  an  establishment,  by 
which  all  power  is  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  travelling  preachers, 
and  through  which,  they  have  gained  a  degree  of  ascendency  over 
the  people,  sufficient  to  induce  them,  "without  any  itinerant  sug- 
gestion or  influence  whatever,"  to  expel  from  their  communion, 
faithful  servants  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  having  the  boldness  to  call  in 
question,  the  legitimacy  or  reasonableness,  of  a  system  of  church 
government  which  still  retains  the  powers  so  "assumed." 

The  mighty  influence  of  these  English  preachers,  and  their  man- 
ner of  exercising  it  in  view  of  its  ultimate  object,  will  be  more 
satisfactorily  understood  by  attending  to  an  additional  sketch  or 
two  from  the  history  of  those  early  times. 

From  the  date  1773,  the  revolutionary  troubles  interrupted  the 
progress  of  the  work  for  several  years;  and  we  read  in  the  preface 
of  Lee's  History  of  the  Methodists,  &c.  page  5,  "there  have  been, 
in  general,  very  many  errors  and  imperfections  in  the  minutes  of 
the  Annual  Conferences."  We  shall  therefore  take  no  notice  of 
them  from  the  year  1773  till  1779.  In  this  year,  1779,  two  con- 
ferences \yere  held.  One  at  Mr.  F.  White's  in  Delaware,  the  place 
of  Mr.  Asbury's  retirement; — the  other  at  the  Broken  Back  church, 
in  Fluvanna  County,  Virginia.  According  to  the  large  minutes 
which  were  published  in  1813,  it  appears  that  on  the  28th  April, 
1779,  sixteen  preachers  attended  the  conference  at  Mr.  White's; 
and  thirty-two  at  the  Broken-back  church,  on  the  18th  of  May  fol- 
lowing;— twenty-two  days  only,  after  the  conference  at  Mr.  White's. 
The  number  of  preachers  reckoned  for  the  two  conferences  is 
forty-nine.*  We  have  been  told,  however,  that  the  conference  at 
Mr.  White's,  was  attended  by  Freeborn  Garretson,  Joseph  Hartly, 
William  Glendenning,  Daniel  Ruff,  Joseph  Cromwell,  Thomas  S. 
Chew,  Thomas  McClure,  Caleb  B.  Peddicord,  John  Cooper,  Wil- 
liam Gill,  and  William  Waters,  who,  together  with  Mr.  Asbury, 
made  up  twelve  in  number.  If  this  communication  was  errone- 
ous, and  the  true  number  was  sixteen,  it  will  not  materially  change 
the  view  which  we  propose  to  take  of  these  two  conferences. 

The  conference  at  Mr.  White's,  was  convoked  by  Mr.  Asbury, 
and  if  sixteen  in  number,  it  consisted  of  less  than  one  third  of  all 
the  preachers  who  ought  to  have  been  present,  in  order  to  do  the 
weighty  business  which  was  done  by  them. 

One  of  the  questions  proposed  and  answered,  was  as  follows,  viz: 

"Ought  not  brother  Asbury  to  act  as  General  Assistant  in 
America? 


'There  must  have  been  one  absent,  whose  name  was  afterwards  inserted. 


125 


Ans.  He  ought.  1st.  On  account  of  his  age.  2d.  Because 
originally  appointed  by  Mr.  Wesley.  3d.  Being  joined  with  Messrs* 
Rankin  and  Shad  ford,  by  express  order  from  Mr.  Wesley." 

Another  question  proposed  and  answered  by  the  same  confer- 
ence, was  as  follows,  viz: 

"How  far  shall  his  (brother  Asbury's)  power  extend? 

Ans.  On  hearing  every  preacher  for  and  against  what  is  in  de- 
bate; the  right  of  determination  shall  rest  with  him,  according  to 
the  minutes."  That  is,  his  power  in  America,  shall  be  equal  to  Mr. 
Wesley'3,  in  England. 

The  appointment  of  a  General  Assistant,  and  the  adoption  of  a 
resolution  conferring  upon  him  such  plenary  power,  was  an  act  of 
the  greatest  importance.  At  the  time  when  this  was  done  by 
eleven,  or  if  we  admit  it,  by  fifteen,  there  were  thirty-two  other 
preachers,  all  absent.  But  the  eleven,  or  say  fifteen,  "assumed" 
the  prerogative  to  say  for  the  whole  forty-nine,  that  Mr.  Asbury 
"ought"  to  rule  over  them  all,  after  the  manner  above  stated.  To 
judge  rightly  of  the  extent  of  this  "assumption"  it  must  be  recol- 
lected, that  the  regular  conference*  was  expected  to  meet  in  about 
twenty  days,  in  Fluvanna  County,  Virginia,  where,  in  fact,  thirty- 
two  did  meet,  and  passed  resolutions  and  adopted  measures,  pro- 
mising to  be  more  consistent  with  independent  American  views  of 
church  government.  To  make  this  measure  plausible,  Mr.  Asbury 
held  out  this  conference  as  one  preparatory  to  the  conference  at 
Broken-back  church,  and  appealed  to  a  similar  -  instance  in  Mr. 
Wesley's  administration,  in  England: — not  seeming  to  have  per- 
ceived, that  his  appeal  implicated  his  assumption  of  a  standing 
parallel  with  that  of  Mr.  Wesley.  And  it  is  the  assumption  of 
which  we  complain. 

In  1780,  24th  April,  a  part  of  the  preachers  met  in  Baltimore,  it 
would  seem  at  the  instance  and  under  the  special  influence  of  Mr. 
Asbury.  Shall  not  this  conference  be  considered  to  have  been  a 
preparatory  one,  as  well  as  that  which  met  the  year  preceding,  at 
Mr.  White's?  The  regularly  appointed  conference,-  was  expected 
to  meet  at  the  Manakin  town,  in  Virginia,  on  the  8th  day  of  the 
next  month,  two  weeks  from  that  time.  This  second  preparatory 
conference,  was  composed  of  about  fourteen  or  fifteen  young  men, 
nine  of  whom  attended  the  conference  at  Mr.  White's.  To  these 
nine  were  added  Messrs.  John  Hagerty,  Richard  Garretson,  Mi- 
cajah  Debruler,  Joshua  Dudley,  Philip  Cox,  perhaps,  and  John 
Tunnell.  The  large  minutes  would  lead  to  the  supposition  that 
the  conference  consisted  of  twenty-four.  But  there  were  at  least 
five  young  men  received  on  trial,  which  would  make  the  number  of 
acting  members  to  be  nineteen.  The  minute  seems  to  be  marked 
with  uncertainty.  It  is  obvious,  however,  that  the  whole  number 
of  the  preachers  as  stated  for  the  year  1780,  is  forty-two.  In 
course  that  nineteen  of  them  met  in  Baltimore; — we  will  say  nine- 

*  Freeborn  Garretson,  in  his  last  letter,  recognizes  this  as  the  regular  con- 
ference. 

17 


126 


teen,  in  order  to  conform  to  the  minute,  and  these  nineteen  "as- 
sumed" the  power  to  "nullify"  the  proceedings  of  the  regular  con- 
ference;— of  the  thirty-two  who  met  the  preceding  year,  at  the  Bro- 
ken-back church,  in  Virginia. 

Three  questions  were  proposed  and  answered  in  accomplishing 
this  nullification,  viz: 

"Quest.  20.  Does  this  whole  conference,"  [all  these  nineteen 
preachers,]  disapprove  the  step  our  brethren  have  taken  in  Vir- 
ginia? 

Ans.  Yes. 

Quest.  21.  Do  we  look  upon  them  no  longer  as  Methodists,  in 
connexion  with  Mr.  Wesley  and  us,  till  they  come  back? 
Ans.  Agreed. 

Quest.  26.  What  must  be  the  conditions  of  our  union  with  our 
Virginia  brethren? 

Ans.  To  suspend  all  their  administrations  for  one  year,  and  all 
meet  together  in  Baltimore." 

And  was  not  this,  the  most  absolute  dictation?  To  us  it  has  that 
appearance. 

Mr.  Asbury's  influence  must  have  been  very  considerable,  or  he 
could  not  have  succeeded  in  carrying  into  effect,  measures  so  in- 
consistent with  the  rights  of  the  preachers.  Under  that  influence 
a  few  of  them  "assumed"  the  right  to  act  tor  the  whole,  in  declar- 
ing him  the  general  assistant  and  in  awarding  to  him  a  degree  of 
power,  totally  incompatible  with  American  views  of  government 
of  any  kind.  Under  the  same  influence,  another  preparatory  con- 
ference "assumed"  the  right  to  nullify  the  proceedings  of  a  majority, 
and  actually  to  declare  the  majority  excluded  from  the  fellowship  of 
Mr.  Wesley  and  themselves,  unless  they  would  submit  to  the  dic- 
tation of  the  minority,  and  show  their  obedience  by  a  strict  regard 
of  that  dictation  for  one  year,  and  then  present  themselves  at  Bal- 
timore, ready  for  further  orders. 

The  Virginians,  although  they  had  some  disposition  to  assert 
their  rights,  were  not  able  to  resist  the  influence  of  Mr.  Asbury, 
whose  authority  was  already  admitted  by  the  preachers  to  the 
North.  We  read  in  Lee's  history,  page  73,  that-Mr.  Asbury  "met 
with  the  preachers  in  Conference  at  Baltimore,  as  has  been  already 
mentioned.  He  then  visited  his  brethren  in  Virginia,  and  attend- 
ed the  Conference  at  the  "Manakin  town,"  *  *  *  and  "had  to  exert 
all  his  powers,  and  to  use  all  possible  prudence,  in  order  to  bring 
about  a  settled  peace  and  union  among  all  the  preachers."  He 
might  have  said  in  order  to  bring  all  the  preachers  into  the  state  of  sub- 
mission, proposed  and  established  by  the  eleven,  at  Mr.  Whites. 
It  would  seem,  that  the  Virginians  could  not  perceive  at  first  sight, 
the  weight  of  the  reasons  assigned  for  making  Mr.  Asbury  general 
assistant,  and  clothing  him  with  absolute  power.  The  eleven  had 
said  he  "ought"  to  act  in  that  capacity,  because  of  his  age.  And 
how  old  was  he?  In  1771,  when  he  came  to  America,  he  was 
twenty-six.  In  1779,  he  was  thirty-four.  Virginians  could  not 
feel  sufficient  weight  in  thirty-four  years,  to  justify  the  appointment. 
But  the  eleven  had  two  additional  reasons,  or  at  the  least,  one  ad- 


127 


ditional  reason,  twice  told,  so  as  to  seem  to  have  had  three.  They 
said  he  ought  to  act  as  general  assistant,  because  he  "was  original- 
ly appointed  by  Mr.  Wesley."  Virginians  knew,  that  Mr.  Wesley, 
did  not  originally  appoint  him  to  act  as  general  assistant,  but  as  an 
assistant  only,  and  as  inferior  to  Mr.  Rankin.  But  to  guard  against 
this  exception,  which  appears  to  have  been  anticipated  by  them, 
they  state  the  reason  over  again,  and  admit  the  truth  of  the  case, 
as  if  it  were  a  third  reason,  and  say,  "he  ought  to  act  as  general 
assistant,  because  he  was  joined  with  Messrs.  Rankin  and  Shadford, 
by  express  order  from  Mr.  Wesley."    Virginians  knew,  that  Mr. 
Wesley  appointed  one  general  assistant,  and  no  more; — Mr.  Ran- 
kin; and  that  Messrs.  Shadford  and  Asbury,  were  assistants  to  Mr. 
Rankin.  They  were  not  misinformed  in  respect  to  this  matter.  Mr. 
Rankin  travelled  at  large  himself,  and  appointed  to  Messrs.  Shad- 
ford and  Asbury,  from  year  to  year,  their  respective  circuits  and 
stations.    As  to  the  motive  of  Mr.  Asbury,  and  those  entering  into 
his  views,  in  aiding  and  sustaining  him  in  these  measures,  by  which 
he  was  daily  gaining  new  accessions  of  power,  we  shall  say  nothing 
to  the  disparagement  of  his  reputation.    Mr.  Wesley,  had  set 
the  dictatorial  example.    Mr.  Asbury,  thought  it  best  to  follow  on 
in  his  footsteps; — and,  that  he  considered  his  course  to  be  apos- 
tolical, his  own  journal  bears  ample  testimony.    But  in  view  of 
the  principles  of  government,  it  is  undeniably  true,  that  he  had 
not  any  other  than  an  "assumed"  authority,  to  convoke  and  organ- 
ize a  conference  of  twelve  of  the  preachers,  when  the  whole  num- 
ber of  them  was  forty-nine.    And  when  it  is  considered,  that  this 
"assumption"  was  intended  to  forestall  the  regular  conference,  that 
was  so  soon  to  meet  at  Broken-back  church,  we  are  compelled  to 
feel  toward  the  measure,  the  greater  objection.  This  unauthorized 
conference,  had  no  right  to  appoint  Mr.  Asbury,  general  assistant. 
The  writer  of  the  minute  seems  to  have  been  conscious  of  this, 
and  the  questions  which  were  proposed  and  answered  by  the  Eng- 
lishmen in  1773,  as  well  as  those  which  were  proposed  and  an- 
swered at  Mr.  Asbury's  conference,  at  Mr.  White's,  were  framed 
accordingly.    When  they  had  respect  to  the  authority  of  the 
preachers,  in  the  instance  of  1773,  and  to  the  appointment  of  Mr. 
Asbury,  in  the  instance  of  the  Delaware  conference;  they  were 
made  to  read  thus.   "Ought  not  the  authority,  &c?"    "Ought  not 
the  doctrine,"  &,c.     And  "ought  not  brother  Asbury,  to  act 
as  general  assistant  in  America?"     As  if  it  were  a  matter  of 
doubt.    And  yet  their  decisions  were  acts  of  legislative  pur- 
pose; and  the  question,  which  was  intended  to  mark  the  ex- 
tent of  Mr.  Asbury's  power,  is  obviously  imperative;  as  thus: 
"How  far  shall  his  power  extend?    The  conference  which  was 
convened  at  Baltimore,  consisting  only  of  a  part  of  the  preachers, 
and  obviously  intended  to  forestall  the  depending  conference  at 
the  Manakin  town,  had  none  other  than  an  "assumed"  authority  to 
nullify  the  proceedings  of  the  majority  at  Broken-back  church. 
Nevertheless,  things  went  on  after  this  manner,  and  Mr.  Asbury 
continued  to  gain  such  an  ascendency  over  the  South,  as  well  as 
over  the  North,  that  as  early  as  the  year  1782,  he  had  pretty  well 


128 


secured  all  that  was  necessary.  "The  conference  in  the  North, 
says  Mr.  Lee  "was  of  the  longest  standing,  composed  of  the  oldest 
preachers;  it  was  allowed  greater  privileges  than  that  in  the  South; 
especially  in  making  rules  and  forming  regulations  for  the  societies. 
Accordingly,  when  any  thing  was  agreed  to,  in  the  Virginia  con- 
ference, and  afterwards  disapproved  of,  in  the  Baltimore  confer- 
ence, it  was  dropped.  But  if  any  rule  was  fixed  on  at  the  Balti- 
more conference,  the  preachers  in  the  South  were  under  the  neces- 
sity of  abiding  by  it."  With  these  things  in  view,  we  cannot  be 
surprized,  that  the  preachers  were  prepared  by  the  year  1784,  for 
the  adoption  of  an  episcopal  form  of  church  government  so  con- 
structed, as  to  exclude  the  people  and  local  preachers  from  their 
conferences,  and  secure  to  themselves  and  their  successors,  all 
power  to  legislate,  and  all  authority  to  execute  the  discipline  of 
their  church. 

It  is  due  to  the  lay  brethren,  to  state,  that  all  these  matters  were 
conducted  by  the  preachers  alone.  The  people  had  no  part  or  lot 
in  the  matter.  And  we  have  no  desire  to  bring  them  into  view  at 
this  time.  But  the  bare  insinuation,  that  the  powers  of  the  preach- 
ers had  been  "assumed"  seems  to  have  provoked  the  Agent  to  ac- 
cuse us  with  having  alleged  things  against  the  "fathers"  which  we 
ourselves  did  not  believe  to  be  true; — we  have,  therefore,  given  this 
sketch,  in  order  to  shew  to  him  and  others,  that  the  kind  of  "intre- 
pedity"  with  which  he  has  attempted  to  impugn  us,  will  not  apply 
quite  as  well  as  he  expected.  Besides,  a  recollection  of  these 
things,  as  they  occurred  at  the  commencement  of  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  will  be  useful,  as  we 
pass  on  through  the  remainder  of  our  work. 

This  account  of  early  times,  will  justify  many  of  the  remaining 
extracts,  for  the  publication  of  which  we  were  expelled,  and  which 
have  been  thought  offensive  by  some  well  meaning  people,  because 
they  were  unacquainted  with  the  considerations  which  induced  us 
to  give  them  admission  into  the  periodical.  Such  was  the  case  with 
many  in  respect  to  the  paper  which  will  be  the  subject  of  the  fol- 
lowing chapter.  The  writer  who  took  the  signature  of  Luther,  re- 
sided in  North  Carolina.  His  paper  was  printed  in  the  October 
number  of  the  Mutual  Rights,  1826.  Reformers  had  then  been 
expelled  in  Tennessee,  and  in  North  Carolina,  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  Luther.  The  preachers  in  authority  there,  were  inclined 
to  deal  very  roughly  with  the  friends  of  reform.  The  reader,  there- 
fore, will  expect  to  meet  with  warmth; — with  signs  of  excitement, 
corresponding  to  such  lofty  proceedings  on  the  part  of  the  men  in 
power.  And  it  is  important  that  it  should  be  understood,  that  Re- 
formers, even  in  the  judgment  of  the  prosecutors,  had  at  that  time 
done  nothing  worse  than  publish  and  read  the  papers  on  church 
property  by  Mr.  Snethen,  and  on  the  expediency  of  representation 
by  Nehemiah,*  and  they  were  beginning  to  form  Union  Societies. 
And  for  these,  the  authority-men  began  to  expel  us.  This  subject 
will  be  resumed  in  another  place. 

Those  two  papers  are  all  that  were  indicated  of  earlier  date  than  Luthers. 


129 


CHAPTER  XV. 

Luther  on  Representation; — the  paper  which  the  Agent  considered  to 
contain  "denunciations  and  invectives,  which  might  have  been  taken 
for  the  ravings  of  a  madman." 

This  chapter  presents  not  only  the  parts  of  Luther,  which  were 
"indicated,"  but  the  paper  very  nearly  entire.  A  few  comments  are 
interspersed  to  aid  the  reader  in  perceiving  the  grounds  of  its  jus- 
tification. 

"With  much  interest  I  have  perused  several  numbers  of  your 
Mutual  Rights.  The  friends  of  reform  speak  very  intelligibly  the 
language  of  the  American  family.  They  reiterate  the  theme  of 
those  who  gloriously  repose  in  the  stillness  of  Thermopylae,  Mar- 
athon, Chasronaea,  Pharsalia,  Monmoth.  They  resist  the  same  prin- 
ciple which  slew  the  Martyrs,  slaughtered  Poland,  assailed  Ame- 
rica, and  was  vanguished.  "That  principle  is  despotism."  And  is 
not  this  assertion  true?  What  is  despotism?  It  is  absolute  power; 
it  is  authority  unlimited  and  uncontrolled  by  men,  constitution  or  laws. 
This  principle,  reformers  resist.  In  resisting  this  principle,  they 
"speak  very  intelligibly  the  language  of  the  American  people; — 
they  resist  the  same  principle,  which  slew  the  Martyrs,"  &c.  &c. 
Dare  any  man  say,  these  propositions  are  not  true?  And  who 
could  have  believed,  when  this  paper  was  published,  that  we  would 
be  expelled  for  publishing  such  true  propositions.  "At  this  plain 
word  some  will  cry  out  treason;  or  what  is  tantamount,  apostacy." 
The  writer  of  the  Narrative  and  Defence;  says,  "we  learn  from  this 
writer,  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  is,  such  a  despotism 
as  was  resisted  by  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  and  by  the  Americans 
at  Monmoth.  This  declaration  grossly  misrepresents  Luther.  Dr. 
Bond  identifies  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  with  the  princi- 
ple— or  at  the  least,  he  accuses  Luther  with  saying  that  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church  "is  predicated  on  the  same  principle,  fyc. 
The  candid  reader  cannot  fail  to  perceive,  that  Luther  intended  to 
keep  up  a  marked  distinction  between  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  as  a  body  of  christians,  and  the  government  or  church 
polity,  by  which  its  moral  discipline  is  administered,  and  its  pow- 
ers and  prerogatives  dispensed.  Nay  more,  he  intended  a  further 
and  very  satisfactory  distinction,  between  the  government  in  view 
of  its  commendable  principles  as  well  as  such  of  its  operations  as 
are  proper  for  the  purpose  of  spreading  religion,  and  this  one  ob- 
jectionable principle  which  very  much  mars  its  beauty,  in  the  opin- 
ion of  all  lovers  of  liberty.  He  says  in  effect,  that  the  principle  of 
despotism,  by  some  means  has  been  permitted  to  find  a  place  in  the 
government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  this  despo- 
tic principle  in  the  government,  the  reformers  oppose.  And  is 
this  slander?  Is  this  an  offence  for  which  it  was  right  to  excom- 
municate reformers  out  of  the  church?  Let  Luther,  now  speak  for 
himself.  "Oh  Messrs.  Editors!  how  profoundly  I  regret,  that  truth 
will  apply  this  hateful  characteristic  to  any  part  of  Methodistical 


130 

polity,  the  searcher  of  hearts  alone  can  tell."    Can  any  thing  be 
more  clear,  than  that  he  intends  to  refer  the  imputation,  specifical- 
ly and  exclusively  to  the  "polity"  of  the  church?    But  Dr.  Bond 
tells  the  people,  who  "never  have  read  the  Mutual  Rights  at 
all,"  that  the  imputation  is  charged  upon  the  church.  "For 
sixteen  years  have  the  sympathies  of  my  heart,  and  the  ener- 
gies of  my  mind  been  deeply  interested  in  behalf  of  our  Zion. 
During  that  time,  I  have  lingered,  with  fond  solicitude  about  the 
outer  courts,  (not  having  shared  in  her  councils,  though  of  her 
priesthood;)  I  have  willingly  hewn  her  wood  and  drawn  her  water; 
all  the  while  hoping,  that  her  leading  chieftains  would  roll  away 
this  reproach  from  her  honour,  banish  this  cloud  from  her  beauty, 
purge  this  poison  from  her  vitals,  *  *  *  *  and  enable  her  to  walk 
forth  in  all  her  native  beauty,  fair  as  the  moon,  clear  as  the  sun,  and 
terrible  as  an  army  with  banners;  the  praise  of  the  whole  earth." 
Very  differently  from  the  unjust  distortions  of  doctor  Bond,  the 
printing  committee  learned  from  the  foregoing  clause,  that  in  Lu- 
<iher's  opinion,  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  had  honour  and 
native  beauty  sufficient  to  make  her  the  praise  of  the  whole  earth. 
But  that  her  honour  was  sullied  and  her  beauty  defaced,  by  having 
admitted  the  principle  of  despotism  into  her  polity.    And  was  it  the 
duty  of  the  printing  committee  to  consider  this  to  be  vehement  rail- 
ing?" Until  the  last  General  Conference,  I  viewed  this  despotic  trait 
in  her  polity,  as  the  offspring  of  casualties;  a  sort  of  wild  exotic, 
which  by  some  mishap  had  sprung  up  in  the  garden  of  the  Lord: 
a  wandering  demon,  which  had  insinuated  himself  into  our  para- 
dise, unobserved;  and  like  Milton's  toad  at  the  ear  of  Eve,  infused 
into  the  genius  of  our  church,  portentous  dreams  and  dreary 
visions.*  I  looked  to  that  General  Conference,  for  an  achievement 
worthy  of  primitive  Christianity  and  American  Methodists.  My 
fond  imagination  displayed  to  my  view,  an  august  assembly  of  holy 
men,  hurling  this  monster  (despotism)  from  the  heights  of  their 
Salem,  a  spectacle  to  an  admiring  nation.    But  oh!  cruel  disap- 
pointment! Methodism  has  lost  one  of  her  richest  laurels.  Never 
did  an  epoch  of  her  history,  give  to  her  rulers,  so  distinguished  an 
opportunity  of  shedding  an  immortal  lustre  upon  her  own  name  and 
their  own  memories.    But  that  circular,  the  ominous  offspring  of 
her  labour,  too  barren  to  merit  citicism,  serves  only  to  mortify  the 
best  friends  of  Methodism,  and  legalize  oppression."    Here  the 
extract  takes  a  leap  over  a  page  and  a  half  of  matter,  which 
did  not  suit  the  purpose  of  the  agent.    We  will  supply  it,  as  fur- 
nishing the  most  satisfactory  explanation  of  the  justifiableness  of 
the  paper.    "It,  (the  circular  of  the  General  Conference,)  finds  a 
suitable  helpmate,  a  sort  of  counter  part,  in  the  barren  specula- 
tions of  doctor  Armistead,  with  this  difference; — in  the  former, 
we  have  a  skeleton  or  a  pile  of  bones  in  plain  attire;  in  the  latter, 
we  have  the  same  thing  in  meretricious  ornaments.    But  neither 

*Fora  more  perfect  understanding1  of  all  these  figures,  and  of  the  previous 
imputation  of  despotism,  we  refer  the  reader  to  his  recollections  of  1773, 
and  1779,  &c.  &c. 


131 


the  simplicities  of  the  one,  nor  the  frivolities  of  the  other,  I  trust, 
will  ever  reconcile  any  well  informed  American,  to  that  monster, 
(despotism)  which  for  so  many  ages,  has  fattened  the  fowls  of  the 
air  with  the  flesh  of  fallen  mortals,  and  drenched  the  earth  with 
their  blood.    Think  not  Messrs.  Editors,  that  I  identify  the  men 
with  theprinciple,  or  the  church  with  either,  (the  principle  or  the 
men.)    For  the  men,  I  have  a  heart  full  of  brotherly  charities; — 
for  the  principle,  a  lash  of  scorpions; — for  the  church,  my  best 
affections.    By  the  church,  I  mean  Christ's  Eccleisa,  or  called  out 
of  which,  he  is  the  only  head;  and  to  which  bishops,  elders,  dea- 
cons and  private  members,  bear  subordinate  relations,  for  the  work 
of  the  ministry,  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the  edifying  of 
the  body  of  Christ.    I  admit  that  a  church  is  a  visible  Theocracy, 
and  in  this  particular,  it  differs  from  all  other  associated  commu- 
nities;— that  its  divine  founder  and  supreme  head,  holds  in  his 
own  hand,  all  that  is  necessary  to  its  real  being; — such  as  the 
principle  of  life,  by  which  it  is  sustained; — the  principle  of  love, 
by  which  it  is  united; — the  power  by  which  it  is  defended; — and 
the  sanctity  by  which  it  is  made  worthy  of  himself.    Bishops  or 
elders,  and  deacons,  are  properly  servants  (not  lords)  of  this  body, 
more  or  less  obligated,  in  proportion  to  the  qualifications  conferred 
on  them,  by  the  Supreme  Head.    On  each  of  those,  power  is  con- 
ferred for  the  duties  required.    This,  I  presume,  is  pleasant  doc- 
trine; be  it  so.    The  duty  required  of  every  christian  minister  is, 
to  help  his  fellow  men  to  Heaven;  and  his  obligations  are  in  pro- 
portion to  his  ability.    The  most  effectual  help  in  this  great  matter 
is,  to  use  those  efforts  which  will  most  effectually  produce  heaven- 
ly mindedness,  purity  of  heart,  and  a  likeness  to  God,  in  others. 
And  among  the  various  qualifications  of  a  christian  minister,  no 
one  will  be  found  more  potent  for  this  purpose,  than  a  luminous 
exemplification  in  his  own  life,  of  the  heavenly  simplicity  he  incul- 
cates on  others;  while  but  few  things  can  more  effectually,  thwart 
his  usefulness,  than  an  arbitrary  dictatorial  manner,  or  domineering 
attitude  towards  others.    There  is  a  nameless  something  in  our 
nature,  depraved  as  it  is,  which  feels  the  potent  allurement  of 
heavenly  suavity  and  christian  condescention;  and  in  the  same 
proportion,  that  something,  feels  an  unconquerable  repugnance  to 
all  that  is  dictatorial  and  lording.    That  domination  which  is  odi- 
ous and  injurious  in  one  man,  is  more  so  in  a  multitude; — unless 
we  admit  that  numbers  sanctify  enormities.    The  church  is  the 
family  of  Christ;  the  more  freely  the  members  of  this  spiritual 
household  commingle  in  domestic  consultations  and  enterprizes, 
the  more  peaceably,  harmoniously  and  safely,  will  they  glide  along 
the  stream  of  time  to  endless  rest. 

Invidious  distinctions  are  especially  dangerous  to  christian  com- 
munities, because  self  denial,  heavenly  simplicity  and  brotherly 
equality,  are  prominent  features  of  the  christian  religion;  and  the 
opposites  of  these,  wherever  they  occur,  destroy  christian  confi- 
dence and  sever  the  bonds  of  union  and  love."  Here  we  pause  to 
ask  what  part  of  this  paper  so  far  as  we  have  gone  over  it,  as  an 
editorial  committee,  we  could  have  found  cause  to  reject.  Our 


132 


periodical  was  open  for  the  investigation  of  church  polity,  and 
particularly  for  the  admission  of  suitable  essays  in  favour  of  mu- 
tual rights  and  a  lay-delegation  to  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  And  if  we  were  not  at  liberty  to 
admit  such  a  paper  as  this  one  by  Luther,  it  is  obvious  we  were 
not  at  liberty  to  investigate  the  subject  at  all.  And,  by  the  by,  it 
was  the  object  of  the  prosecutions,  to  prevent  the  further  publica- 
tion of  papers  like  this.  If  permitted,  they  would  inevitably  have 
been  fatal  to  clerical  ambition. 

"Upon  what  principle  the  General  Conference,  the  great  legis- 
lative council  of  our  church,  pretend  to  imagine,  that  the  final  ex- 
clusion of  a  vast  majority  of  the  ministry,  and  all  the  laity  from 
their  deliberations,  can  subserve  the  cause  of  godliness  in  the 
United  States,  I  cannot  conjecture.  The  General  Conference  is 
composed  of  men,  selected  from  the  itinerancy,  headed  by  an  epis- 
copacy for  life.  They  are  only  accountable  for  their  acts,  to  the 
authority  which  clothed  them  with  representative  power,  that  is 
the  itinerancy:  if  their  legislative  acts  had  an  exclusive  reference 
to  the  itinerants,  their  only  constituents,  their  authority  would 
claim  the  sanctions  of  liberality  and  justice.  But  this  is  not  the  case, 
and  when  those  representatives  of  the  itinerants,  who  alone  elect 
them,  presume  to  legislate  for  all  the  locality  and  laity  of  the  Me- 
thodist Church,  what  assumption  can  be  more  unwarrantable,  what 
system  more  oppressive?  In  case  of  grievance,  where  shall  the 
locality  and  laity  look  for  redress?  They  have  no  check  upon  their 
law-givers.  The  members  of  the  General  Conference  are  all  pledg- 
ed to  their  itinerant  brethren,  who  send  them  there;  and  the  itin- 
erancy in  mass,  are  all  indirectly  pledged  to  the  episcopacy:  hence 
the  episcopacy  is  frequently  strengthened  and  the  itinerancy  is  always 
guarded;  but  the  rights  of  the  laity  and  locality  are  trampled  upon." 
This  is  true.  Witness  the  report  of  the  General  Conference, 
1824,  which  in  view  of  a  claim  to  the  rights  of  the  laity  and  locali- 
ty says,  "pardon  us  if  we  know  no  suck  Rights."  "The  truth  is, 
the  laity  and  locality  have  no  representation  on  that  floor  (the 
General  Conference)  no  advocates  to  plead  their  cause.  These 

REMARKS  HAVE  NO  REFERENCE  TO  THE  MORAL  CHARACTER  OF  THE 

general  conference;  for.  however  holy  that  body  may  be,  it  is 
no  impeachment  of  thir  goodness  to  suppose,  that  men  so  entirely 
divested  of  the  cares  of  life,  as  they  are,  cannot  be  qualified  to 
legislate  usefully,  for  those  who  are  variously  related  to  civil  and 
religious  society,  as  the  locality  and  laity  are.  To  legislate  use- 
fully for  others,  we  must  not  only  see,  but  feel;  we  must  not  only 
know,  what  will  be  fit,  but  what  will  be  pleasant  or  painful,  pernici- 
ous or  profitable.  But  ail  this,  by  some  will  be  thought  irrelevant. 
We  disclaim,  say  they,  any  interference  with  your  civil  rights,  and 
our  clerical  authority  we  derive  from  God.  *  *  *  But  Messrs. 
Editors,  who  shall  draw  the  discriminating  line  between  civil  and 
religious  rights;  and  after  it  is  drawn,  what  layman  of  an  enlight- 
ened mind  and  heavenly  soul,  will  suffer  any  band  of  legislative 
volunteers,  to  regulate  the  policy  of  his  eternal  state,  at  their  own 
discretion,  while  he  stands  ready  to  be  immolated  on  the  altar  of 


133 


freedom,  rather  than  suffer  an  officious  despot  to  point  his  course 
through  this  transient  vale  of  tears?  Oh!  is  the  religion  of  Jesus, 
with  all  its  enrapturing  joys;  the  soul  with  all  its  indescribable 
powers;  heaven  with  all  its  inconceivable  glories;  and  hell  with  all 
its  unutterable  horrors;  are  these  malters  so  trivial,  that  we  leave 
them  to  the  winds; — to  the  speculations  of  self-created  conclaves, 
while  we  guard  the  sanctuary  of  our  civil  rights,  so  inviolably?  Il- 
lustrious prophets  and  martyrs,  had  you  been  thus  pliant,  instead  of 
sailing  through  the  bloody  storms  of  time  to  endless  rest,  you  had 
smoothly  glided  down  to  hell;  instead  of  leaving  your  track  to  glory 
a  living  galaxy  of  heavenly  light,  the  heavy  clouds  of  the  second 
death,  would  now  fling  their  thunders  upon  your  weather  beaten 
spirits;  instead  of  handing  down  to  posterity  the  word  of  life.,  pure 
and  undefiled,  you  had  bequeathed  to  the  world,  a  darkness  more 
dreary  than  that  which  fell  on  ancient  Egypt.  But,  ye  reverend 
spirits  of  Europe  and  Asia,  you  have  fought  the  good  fight,  and 
laid  hold  upon  eternal  life.  It  is  for  us,  American  Methodists,  to 
prostrate  ourselves  at  the  foot  of  a  spiritual  aristocracy,  and  say, 
let  us  eat  our  own  bread,  and  wear  our  own  apparel;  but  let  us  be 
called  by  your  name.  It  is  for  us  to  cower  at  the  foot  of  that  prin- 
ciple in  ecclesiastics,  which  was  chastised  by  our  our  forefathers 
upon  the  agents  of  a  civil  despot.  It  is  for  us  Methodists,  to  take 
the  humiliating  responsibility,  of  shamelessly  encouraging  a  spirit- 
ual domination,  in  the  face  of  free  Americans!  It  is  for  us,  the 
emancipated  sons  of  conquering  chieftains,  to  rivet  those  chains 
upon  our  descendants,  which  were  torn  from  our  hands; — if  we 
only  give  them  the  name  of  religion.  Names,  Messrs.  Editors, 
are  very  influential  with  many;  and  but  for  the  name,  this  despotic 
trait  in  our  church  polity,  had  long  since  waked  up  the  solici- 
tude of  every  friend  of  Methodism  in  the  United  States.  It  is 
called  "ministerial  authority."  "The  right  of  the  itin- 
erancy," &,c.  A  despotism  is  not  virtually  changed,  in  my  esti- 
mation, because  it  falls  into  the  hands  of  ecclesiastics;  neither  will 
the  goodness  of  the  ecclesiastics  change  its  nature.  This  may  re- 
strain its  violence.  Despotism  in  the  hands  of  a  good  man,  is  like 
a  sword  in  the  hands  of  a  son  of  peace:  while  it  rests  there,  it  is 
not  felt,  but  when  he  hands  it  over  to  a  warlike  successor,  it  wastes 
the  earth.  The  irresponsible  authority  of  the  General  Conference, 
to  say  the  least  of  it,  is  a  dangerous  precedent  under  a  free  govern- 
ment. It  may  be  equally  injurious  to  the  morals  of  those  who 
hold  it,  as  to  the  rights  of  those  who  are  to  suffer  by  its  exercise. 
The  moderation  of  former  conferences,  is  no  security  against  the 
abuses  of  those  to  come.  The  bishops  of  Rome  were  anciently 
moderate,  good  men;  in  succeeding  ages,  they  became  the  pests 
of  the  earth,  and  the  scourges  of  mankind.  The  plea  of  goodness 
in  behalf  of  ihe  itinerants,  is  one  of  the  most  powerful  arguments 
used  in  favour  of  their  authority.  With  all  the  goodness  of  the 
itinerants,  to  which  I  would  gladly  subscribe,  abuses  already  exist, 
which  loudly  call  for  a  check  or  balance,  from  some  other  depart- 
ment of  the  church.  *  *  *  *  Power  to  serve  the  church,  and  power 
18 


134 


to  command  it,  are  different  things.  The  delegates  of  the  church, 
would  be  really  her  servants,  because  she  could  control  them.  The 
delegates  of  the  itinerancy  may  be  her  lords,  because  in  matters  of 
legislation,  under  the  present  state  of  things,  they  may  bid  her  de- 
fiance. 

What  extent  of  power  is  absolutely  necessary  to  the  ambas- 
sador of  Christ?  As  the  legate  of  heaven,  he  can  only  make 
known  to  men,  the  terms  of  reconciliation  with  their  God,  and  urge 
motives  to  induce  a  compliance.  As  the  servant  of  the  church,  he 
should  preach  the  word,  administer  the  sacraments,  receive  the 
worthy  to  her  communion,  pronounce  her  sentence  on  the  refrac- 
tory, and  in  all  things,  present  in  his  own  life,  a  sample  of  piety  to 
his  flock;  and  he  who  craves  more  power  than  this,  i3  unworthy  of  any 
in  the  church  of  Christ.  In  all  matters  of  vital  importance,  the 
scriptures  of  truth  are  sufficiently  explicit,  and  beyond  them  in 
such  matters,  no  one  should  dare  presume  to  go.  In  business  of  mere 
economy,  and  such  we  consider  the  business  of  the  General  Con- 
ference, it  certainly  would  be  for  the  honour  and  interest  of  the 
church,  to  have  all  her  departments  represented  upon  a  fair  ratio. 
Then  men  of  the  same  grade  would  be  eligible  to  the  same  rights, 
and  the  joint  deliberations  of  all  the  departments,  would  abundant- 
ly strengthen  the  bonds  of  union  in  the  church."  What  candid 
man  will  say  that  Luther's  paper  ought  to  have  been  rejected  on 
account  of  any  thing  it  contains  to  the  end  of  the  above  quotation? 
The  garbled  fragments  extracted  by  the  agent,  needed  only  to  be 
replaced  in  their  proper  connexions,  to  render  them  perfectly  in- 
offensive to  any,  but  those  who  were  morbidly  sensative  on  the 
subject  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  government,  and  even 
to  those  we  cannot  see  why  they  were  offensive,  except  only,  that 
the  truths  they  contain,  were  improperly  disagreeable. 

"But  Messrs.  Editors,  valuable  as  your  paper  is,  the  friends  of 
reform  must  appeal  to  the  public  through  other  mediums,  in  union 
with  that.  You  encounter  a  well  organized,  artful,  enterprizing 
opposition,  which  spreads  through  almost  every  city,  village  and 
neighbourhood,  from  Maine  to  Georgia."  That  this  statement  is 
true,  let  the  Narrative  and  Defence  and  this  Review  be  two  wit- 
nesses. 

"Their  first  effort  is  to  conceal  to  the  utmost,  the  disquietudes 
and  grievances  which  exist  in  our  church,  and  to  lull  a  spirit  of  in- 
quiry to  rest."  Every  careful  observer  of  their  conduct,  knows  this 
likewise  to  be  true.  "Where  this  is  impracticable,  they  arraign  the 
motives  of  the  reformers  with  uncharitable,  with  uncivil  severity." 
Considering  that  they  affect  to  have  expelled  the  reformers  here  and 
elsewhere,  for  evil  speaking,  this  last  sentence  is  a  truth  calculated 
to  excite  astonishment.  "Your  own  paper,  if  I  have  not  been 
sadly  misinformed,  having  been  branded  as  a  sort  of  libel  upon  the 
church,  published  by  deperate  designers,  has  been  kept  out  of  the 
hands  of  valuable  men  to  whom  it  was  addressed,  and  left  to  linger 
in  post  offices.  Oh!  how  I  regret  to  know  the  men,  and  the  character 
they  sustain  in  society,  who  are  employed  in  this  midnight  stabbing." 
This  figure  is  strong,  but  its  meaning  is  defined,  and  its  application 


135 


specified.  We  looked  at  it  with  attention  before  it  was  published. 
We  thought  it  severe,  but  knew  it  was  true.  In  too  many  instan- 
ces our  paper  was  "left  to  linger  in  post  offices,"  and  one  postmas- 
ter told  us,  he  had  burned  or  otherwise  destroyed  some  of  our  pa- 
pers, which  had  to  pass  through  his  hands,  alleging  as  his  apology, 
that  he  did  not  wish  to  see  the  peace  of  the  church  disturbed,  by 
the  introduction  of  the  Mutual  Rights  into  that  neighbourhood. 
This  was  the  kind  of  secret  operations,  which  Luther  intended  to 
rebuke,  and  which  the  committee,  for  the  reasons  above  stated, 
thought  it  right  to  permit  him  to  rebuke  in  the  figurative  language 
of  midnight  stabbing."  "Could  I  believe  in  transmigration,  I  might 
imagine  that  some  of  the  Jesuits  expelled  from  Europe,  had  taken 

up  their  residence  in  the  bodies  of  some  I  in  the 

United  States."    Dr.  Bond  spells  out  the  I  and  nine 

points,  and  makes  them  read  Itinerants.  But  as  the  abuse  refers  to 
wilful  delays  or  other  misconduct  in  post  offices,  &c.  it  is  as  sen- 
sibly spelled  out,  interested.  It  is  a  point  of  no  importance  now, 
who  did  it;  and  it  is  obvious,  that  the  post  master  to  whom  we  al- 
lude above,  and  who  was  once  an  itinerant,  thought  he  had  a  suf- 
ficient interest  in  the  issue  of  the  transaction,  to  practice  this  mal- 
feasance of  office,  that  his  imaginary  good  might  come  of  it  to  the 
church.  And  Luther  had  a  special  reference  to  the  imputation 
commonly  fixed  upon  the  Jesuits,  that  "the  end  sanctifies  the  means." 
"Parsimony  is  a  strong  hold  to  which  very  successful  appeals  are 
made.  The  local  preachers  want  salaries,  city  settlements,  Sfc.  (Src." 
This  imputation  has  been  charged  upon  the  reforming  local  preach- 
ers in  every  direction.  "And  the  great  men  (in  common  style) 
want  to  send  the  little  men  home,  who  serve  cheaply,  &c.  To  the 
last  of  these  charges,  I  plead  guilty  with  all  my  heart;  for  I  have 
long  believed,  that  if  the  church  could  exercise  the  right  of  suf- 
frage, she  would  sift  the  talents  of  her  ministry,  and  secure  the  best 
for  her  service.  But  the  fallacy  of  the  other  subterfuges  of  the 
anti-reformers  bears  its  own  characteristic.  The  majority  of  suf- 
frages will  always  be  among  the  laity,  they  will  therefore  have  it  in 
their  power  to  check  abuses,  and  under  a  well  balanced  form  of 
government,  those  presumers,  who  grasp  so  greedily  after  power 
would  sink  into  merited  contempt,  while  modest  worth  would  be 
duly  promoted.  I  say  you  must  appeal  to  the  public  through  other 
mediums.  You  have  past  the  Rubicon;  there  is  no  returning  with- 
out a  sacrifice  of  principle,  without  abandoning  your  church  to  her 
degraded  destiny.  If  you  suffer  another  General  Conference  to 
legislate  for  you,  I  am  ready  to  say,  prepare  for  tame  submission  or 
banishment."  The  committee  considered  this  prediction  rather 
extravagant,  but  the  event  has  confirmed  the  accuracy  of  the  cal- 
culation. We  were  expelled  before  the  General  Conference  met. 
"Your  missionaries  should  now  be  on  the  high  ways  of  the  nation, 
and  in  the  pulpits  of  your  churches;  and  the  friends  of  re- 
form should  send  their  private  communications  every  where.  You 
have  the  prejudices  of  many  years  arrayed  against  you,  and  that 
still  inglorious  repose,  which  undisturbed  power  artfully  adminis- 
tered, gives,  refuses  to  part  with  its  slumbers.    In  a  word,  you  are 


136 


about  a  great  work,  and  to  accomplish  it  successfully,  requires  aH 
the  wisdom  and  enterprise  of  christians,  and  a  permanent  reliance 
upon  God.  *  *  *  * 

If  I  understand  the  general  object  of  the  reformers,  it  is,  to  dif- 
fuse through  your  paper,  the  light  and  warmth  of  liberal  principles 
throughout  the  Methodist  church,  in  America,  so  luminously  and 
feelingly,  that  the  anti  reformers  illumined  by  their  rays  and  cheer- 
ed with  their  beams,  will  be  constrained  to  say  to  their  reforming 
brethren;  come  into  our  sanctuary,  ye  blessed  of  the  Lord.  Your 
motives  and  spirit  are  such  as  good  men  must  admire,  and  I  doubt 
not  but  Heaven  approves.  But  the  signs  of  the  times  too  clearly 
evince  their  utter  insufficiency  to  accomplish  the  objects  of  reform. 
As  well  may  you  expect  the  pacific  spirit  of  friends,  to  be  a  barrier 
to  the  strife  of  nations,  as  that  the  mild  spirit  and  conclusive  rea- 
sonings of  the  Mutual  Rights  alone,  shall  reform  your  church. 
When  the  order  of  nature  is  reversed,  and  the  streams  "which  rush 
to  the  Atlantic,  shall  smoothly  glide  to  the  submit  of  the  Allegha- 
nies,  then  expect  such  an  effect,  from  such  a  cause.  In  a  word, 
when  men  become  what  they  should  be,  your  present  plans  will  be 
all  sufficient  to  accomplish  your  laudable  object.  I  repeat,  the 
signs  of  the  times  are  against  you.  Your  paper  which  seems  to  be 
the  only  engine  of  the  reformers,  is  branded  with  heresy,  so  far  as 
the  laws  of  the  country  will  allow; — that  travelling  preacher,  who 
ventures  to  peruse  it,  risks  his  reputation,  and  if  he  patronize  it,  in 
all  probability,  his  office."  How  exactly  this  opinion  was  soon 
verified  by  the  two  cases  of  Messrs.  Dorsey  and  Poole.  "The  bet- 
ter half  of  your  members  have  never  heard  of  it,  and  many  of 
those  who  have,  are  detered  from  its  perusal,  from  the  horrid  char- 
acter given  it  by  those  whose  itinerant  career  gives  them  every 
possible  opportunity  to  defame  it  and  its  authors."  That  they 
availed  themselves  of  these  ample  opportunities,  is  sufficiently 
evinced  by  the  facts  which  have  made  this  review  necessary.  "Who 
among  the  opposing  host,  deigns  to  read  your  publications,  much 
less  to  investigate  the*points  of  difference?  *  *  *  What  concilia- 
tory advances  have  the  memorials  and  remonstrances  of  the  last 
twelve  years  procured?  That  healing  breviat,  that  knell  of  charity, 
the  General  Conference  circular,  is  the  bonus  of  so  many  prayers 
and  tears!  Oh!  Messrs.  Editors,  is  your  Mutual  Rights  a  suffi- 
cient barrier  to  restrain  the  proud  waves  of  this  mighty  ocean? 
Never  did  Leo  X.  treat  Luther,  with  such  utter  contempt,  as  you 
receive  at  the  hands  of  your  anti-reforming  brethren;  and  I  doubt 
whether  the  history  of  the  christian  church,  can  furnish  a  parallel. 
If  the  leformers  feel  the  subject  at  heart,  why  not  talk  about  it?  If 
it  is  of  immense  importance,  why  not  publish  it  on  the  house  top? 
But,  if  it  be  a  bad  cause,  why  not  abandon  it!  Those  temporizing 
measures  serve  to  irritate  without  healing;  to  fatigue  the  church 
without  giving  her  rest.  I  am  neither  a  prophet  nor  the  son  of  a 
prophet,  and  I  hope,  I  may  not  be  deemed  a  visionary  when  I  tell 
you,  that  the  reformers  must  do  more  than  write  for  those  who  will  not 
deign  to  read,  or  they  never  will  do  much  for  the  benefit  of  their 
suffering  church.    But  what  is  to  be  done?    This  I  confess  brings 


137 


my  mind  to  a  sort  of  neplus  ultra.  I  have  no  disposition,  could  1 
do  it  at  a  word,  to  decamp,  as  one  said,  and  set  up  for  ourselves, 
and  thereby  add  another  petty  sect  to  the  numbers  which  already 
disturb  the  christian  church  and  distract  society.  Nor  am  I  willing 
to  continue  to  mourn  and  pipe  for  those  who  will  neither  lament 
nor  dance,  until  another  General  Conference  may  strip  me  of  my 
little  Osier  shield,  and  compel  me  by  another  legislative  colossus 
to  cringe  or  fly.  In  all  systems,  animate  and  inanimate,  with  which 
we  are  acquainted,  there  must  be  a  centre  of  union  for  the  associ- 
ated parts.  That  centre  is  now  imperiously  necessary,  for  the  har- 
mony and  energy  of  the  republican  Methodist  reformers.  There 
should  be  some  definite  characteristic  by  which  the  monarchy  and 
anti-monarchy  men  of  our  church  should  be  identified; — should 
be  compelled  to  feel  their  responsibility  to  civil  and  religious 
society,  and  to  account  for  it.  Here  I  entreat  the  aid  of  my 
brethren,  and  here  I  naturally  look  round  the  United  States  for  a 
Moses,  who  has  goodness,  wisdom  and  firmness,  to  erect  a  stand- 
ard, around  which,  the  dispersed  reformers  may  gather,  and  under 
which,  their  emancipated  church  shall  march  up  to  freedom,  pros- 
perity and  happiness?  Oh!  under  such  a  stale  of  things,  my  en- 
raptured mind  beholds  her  bright  spires  rise  above  the  blue  waves 
of  time,  and  her  massy  battlements  lose  themselves  in  the  mists  of 
far  distant  ages,  crowned  with  rejoicing  millions.  A  reform  in  this 
way,  will  for  a  moment  resemble  an  imperium  in  imperio,  but  the 
strife  will  be  of  short  duration.  The  claims  of  the  respective  parties 
being  once  clearly  understood,  the  spirit  of  freedom  would  leaven  the 
whole  lump,  and  the  genius  of  liberty  would  sit  enthroned,  in  the 
bosom  of  every  American  Methodist.  Who  could  dare  deny  the 
right  of  suffrage?  Who  would  claim  the  odium  of  blindly  submit- 
ting to  an  ecclesiastical  domination?  I  for  one  say,  form  associa- 
tions, send  out  missionaries;  you  will  thereby  inform  the  ignorant, 
strengthen  the  week,  give  energy  to  the  labours  of  the  resolute, 
retain  many  who  will  shortly  seek  repose  in  other  churches,  and 
rescue  your  own  church  from  disunion,  anarchy  and  perhaps  ruin. 
Speedily  organize  your  plans  with  wisdom  and  goodness,  and  car- 
ry them  into  operation  with  all  the  violence  of  ingenuity  and  love; 
and  those  who  are  now  securely  enthroned  on  the  submit  of  the 
cloudy  Olympus  of  power,  when  they  shall  feel  the  mount  quake 
and  tremble  beneath  them,  will  become  solicitous  to  know  what  is 
the  matter,  and  not  before.  Pelopides,  the  famous  Theban  Gene- 
ral, when  met  in  a  defile  by  a  powerful  band  of  Lacaedemonians, 
and  informed  by  an  officer  of  the  advance,  "we  are  betrayed 
into  the  hands  of  the  enemy,"  replied  why  not  say,  they  are  betray- 
ed into  our  hands? — and  so  the  event  in  part  proved.  The  Reform- 
ers and  anti-reformers  must  try  the  strength  of  their  respective 
claims.  Oh!  that  the  issue  may  be  for  the  furtherance  of  love,  the 
prosperity  of  the  church,  and  the  glory  of  God?" 

Instead  of  presenting  this  paper,  as  having  been  published  ,  at  a 
time  when  there  were  so  many  causes  of  excitement,  and  when 
there  was  an  expectation  that  the  writer  would  be  called  on,  to  an- 
swer for  his  attachment  to  the  good  work  of  reform; — instead  of  pre- 


188 


senting  the  paper  in  its  true  spirit  and  design,  doctor  Bond  col- 
lected out  of  it  a  garble  of  short  sentences  and  disjointed  words, 
and  exhibited  it  as  if  an  honest  epitome  of  the  essay;  telling  the 
community,  that  Luther  called  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  a 
despotism, — predicated  on  the  same  principles  which  slaughtered 
Poland,  and  slew  the  Martyrs.  That  he  had  represented  the  church 
to  be  an  assumption; — an  usurpation; — an  unwarrantable  and  op- 
pressive assumption; — that  he  had  said  the  rights  of  the  laity  and 
locality  are  trampled  upon; — that  the  conferences  are  self  created 
conclaves; — that  the  members  of  that  church,  prostrate  themselves 
at  the  feet  of  a  spiritual  Aristocracy.  Spiritual  domination,  &-c.  &c. 
Luther  habitually  deals  extensively  in  metaphorical  language.  No 
sensible  reader  can  fail  to  discover  this  on  perusing  his  paper. 
Persons  uninformed  of  this  fact  or  unacquainted  with  the  circum- 
stances which  attended  the  establishment  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church  in  her  mighty  power,  could  readily  be  induced  to 
think,  the  language  of  the  extracts  too  strong  and  perhaps  quite  re- 
prehensible. But  the  printing  committee  saw  the  subject  in  its 
proper  light,  and  felt  confident,  that  Luther's  paper  would  be  read 
with  interest,  and  be  particularly  useful  at  that  time  of  threatened 
"defecation"  of  the  church  both  south  and  west.  As  to  the  imputa- 
tion of  a  tyrannical  trampling  upon  the  rights  of  the  laity,  the  lo- 
cality, and  of  the  itinerant  ministry,  when  it  pleased  the  men  in 
power  to  think  it  expedient  or  necessary  to  do  so,  we  had  been 
compelled  to  view  the  subject,  very  nearly  in  the  light  in  which  it 
is  exhibited  in  the  Methodist  Correspondent,  page  132.  It  ap- 
pears, that  old  side  men  have  accused  some  of  the  ministers  who 
have  left  their  fellowship  and  come  to  us,  of  retaining  the  old  lea- 
ven.   The  paper  will  make  the  following  short  chapter. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

Tyranny  appears  to  be  inevitable  in  the  administration  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

Mr.  Editor, — It  is  frequently  said  of  Reformers,  they  were  ar- 
bitrary, and  tyrants,  in  the  administration  of  discipline,  in  the 
Methodist  E.  Church.  This  is  held  up  as  an  argument,  against 
their  being  what  they  profess;  and  the  people  are  to  view  them  as 
tyrants,  deceivers  and  false  pretenders.  Therefore,  the  statement 
merits  attention:  though  it  can  have  no  application,  but  to  those, 
who  have  been  in  the  itinerancy  of  the  Methodist  E.  Church. 

We  acknowledge  that  this  may  have  been  the  fact,  at  least  in 
some  instances:  our  astonishment  is  not,  that  this  was  the  fact,  but 
that  under  the  circumstances  in  which  they  stood,  the  voice  of 
reason  and  revelation,  should  have  brought  them  to  yield  and  surren- 
der participation  and  emoluments  in  the  citadel  of  power,  and  be- 
come the  advocates  of  religious  liberty.  While  the  sacrifice  they 
have  made,  is  proof  of  the  soundness  of  their  reformation;  it  must  be 


139 


evident,  the  source  from  which  a  man  obtains  official  power,  the 
principle  on  which  he  is  held  accountable  for  exercising  it,  and 
the  tribunal  to  which  he  is  amenable  for  official  action,  together 
with  the  manner  in  which  he  is  prepared  for  office,  and  the  mode 
of  inducting  him  into  it;  will  each  and  all  have  great  influence 
on  his  official  character  and  operations.  And  if  it  shall  be  evident 
on  examination,  that  those  features  in  the  Episcopal  itinerant  sys- 
tem, necessarily  tend  to  make  men  arbitrary  and  tyrannical,  it  will 
follow,  that  the  system  is  to  blame,  and  not  the  men;  and  should 
be  abandoned  as  ruinous  in  its  tendency  to  civil  and  religious 
liberty. 

The  priest,  pope,  or  bishop  who  claims  a  divine  right  to  his  offi- 
cial power,  &lc.  independent  of  the  people,  will  be  regardless  of 
their  rights,  interest,  and  will;  only  so  far  as  suits  his  will,  power 
and  pretensions.  He  places  every  thing  at  the  control  of  his  whims, 
notions,  and  will,  which  he  holds  to  be  superior  wisdom,  holiness 
and  inspiration.  He  says,  he  is  only  accountable  to  God  in  his  offi- 
cial character  and  administration.  He  brings  himself  to  believe,  the 
Almighty  pledged  to  sustain  him,  and  that  no  weapon  formed  against 
him  shall  prosper;  however,  virtuously  or  righteously  raised. — The 
love  of  power  charms  him  till  it  becomes  his  idol.  His  confidence 
in  power,  renders  him  imperious.  He  asks,  who  is  this  'Moses;'  who 
is  this  'Luther;'  'who  asks  my  negative,  fyc.  It  also  renders  him 
blind  to  danger,  till  it  overtakes  him;  and  then  his  proud  heart 
will  not  yield.  This  delirium  is  desparately  fatal,  when  it  becomes 
prevalent,  in  a  body  of  men  professing  to  be  ministers  of  Christ.  Such 
maniacs,  however,  are  not  irresponsible  to  the  public  and  the 
Great  Head  of  the  church,  for  their  pretensions,  assumptions,  ac- 
tions, and  the  fatal  effects  thereof.  The  eighth  section,  Chapter 
1,  of  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  discipline,  of  the  method  of  re- 
ceiving travelling  preachers,  and  of  their  duty,  presents  the  fol- 
lowing facts,  viz.  1st.  The  discipline  is  specially  called  to  view, 
seven  or  eight  times.  2d.  Conscience  is  called  on  twice,  to  en- 
force obededience  to  it.  3d.  Each  candidate  must  give  up  his  own 
will,  and  submit  entirely  to  the  will  of  others.  4th.  He  receives  two 
disciplines;  the  first,  the  only  book  given  to  him,  when  he  is  to  call 
sinners  to  repentance,  make  full  proof  of  his  ministry,  and  be  careful 
to  weigh  what  the  discipline  contains.  The  second; — he  is  freely  to 
consent  to,  and  earnestly  endeavour  to  walk  by;  and  these  are  the 
terms  on  which  others  shall  rejoice  to  acknowledge  him  as  a  fellow 
labourer.  5th.  All  this  is  to  be  regarded  by  every  preacher  in  charge 
from  the  time  he  is  admitted  to  join  the  itinerancy.  And  in  section  12, 
chapter  1,  as  a  special  thing  to  fit  him  for  his  charge;  he  is  to  un- 
derstand, and  love  discipline,  particularly  ours,  (that  is  episcopal.) 
Not  a  word,  so  far,  about  his  weighing,  keeping  for  conscience  sake, 
understanding,  desiring  to  walk  by,  or  loving  the  bible. — All  this 
training  to  fit  each  candidate  for  office,  when  he  may  be  entrusted 
with  the  exercise  of  power.  In  ordination  this  is  still  more  impo- 
singly forced  on  his  understanding  and  conscience; — and  unless  he 
pledges  himself,  he  will  not  be  ordained.  All  this  not  to  make  a 
better  man  or  minister;  but  to  shackle  his  mind,  and  secure  sub- 


140 


mission  to  Episcopal  power.  Now  he  must  'follow  with  a  glad  mind, 
and  will  their  Godly  admonitions,  and  submit  to  their  Godly  judg- 
ments? His  failure,  or  refusal,  in  course  is  construed  into  rebellion 
on  his  part,  and  an  impeachment  of  their  godliness  and  judgment. 
Hence,  he  is  deemed  a  rebel,  and  an  enemy.  To  get  on  with  all 
this,  we  are  obliged  to  think  he  must  be  fully  prepared  to  believe 
the  discipline,  and  the  Episcopal  power,  with  all  its  auxiliaries  to  be 
scriptural,  apostolic  and  right;  and  therefore,  feel  himself,  in  under- 
standing and  conscience  bound,  to  submit  to  such  authorities. 

Take  two  elders;  all  they  hold  as  ministers,  or  by  scriptural  ordi- 
nation must  be  equal.  But  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  all 
official  authority,  to  elders  and  deacons,  in  administration  is  by  the 
bishop's  word.  Therefore,  local  deacons  and  elders,  have  no  lot  or 
part  in  the  matter.  The  bishop  in  placing  two  elders  on  a  circuit, 
gives  the  power  to  which  he  pleases.  He  may  place  the  lad  of 
eighteen  or  twenty,  or  comparatively  young,  over  the  minister  of 
gray  hairs,  long  experience,  good  talents  and  established  reputa- 
tion. 

The  youngster,  (perhaps  a  probationer  only,)  wields  this  power 
because  the  bishop  says  so;  while  the  venerable,  talented  minister, 
bows  to  the  episcopacy,  in  the  boy. — This  is  ruinous  to  one,  and  de- 
grading to  the  other. 

Look  at  presiding  elders;  see  how  youth  reigns  over  those  who 
are  elders  indeed.  The  time  was,  when  the  episcopacy,  thought 
gray  hairs  necessary,  before  a  man  was  raised  to  be  presiding  elder. 
But  now,  the  young  men  who  rally  round  the  episcopal  chair,  with 
the  greatest  zeal  for  high  episcopal  prerogative,  are  the  stuff  of 
which  to  make  presiding  elders;  that  they  may  be  brought  up  to 
the  episcopal  hand.  The  episcopacy  having  breathed  official  life 
into  them,  and  made  them  in  their  own  likeness,  have  a  right,  to  take 
the  life  they  gave,  when  they  please.  Thus  situated,  the  presiding 
elder  goes  by  the  episcopal  will,  in  all  his  acts.  Therefore  cannot  see, 
or  feel  the  rights,  interests,  or  will  of  preachers,  or  people,  only  as 
he  views  them  connected  with,  and  subservient  to,  the  interest  of 
the  office  of  which  he  is  the  deputy. 

The  man,  old  or  young,  put  in  charge  of  a  circuit,  is  placed  at 
the  will  and  direction  of  the  presiding  elder,  and  still  liable  to  the 
primary  episcopacy. 

We  see  then,  that  the  tuition,  induction  into  itinerancy,  and  the 
several  gradations  and  ordinations,  as  performed  and  in  such  cases 
made  and  provided,  are  all  calculated  to  make  men  tyrants;  espe- 
cially in  the  administration  of  a  system  of  such  construction. 
Each  one,  in  the  several  grades  of  advancement,  having  believed 
and  felt  himself  in  conscience  bound,  to  submit  to  such  authority 
and  government,  he  now  thinks  all  others  equally  bound  to  submit. 
Hence  he  is  prepared  to  wield  the  episcopal  sceptre,  as  far  as  it  is 
committed  to  him; — to  wield  it  'in  all  good  conscience'  as  did  'saul' 
of  Tarsus  to  wield  the  power  committed  to  him  by  the  Jewish 
High  Priest.  And  equally,  as  intelligently:  that  is,  "to  do  it  igno- 
rantly."  It  is  evident,  the  only  way  a  man  thus  situated  can  be 
saved,  or  redeemed  from  being  a  tyrant,  is  to  have  the  light  of  his- 


141 


tory,  reason,  truth  and  scripture,  to  irradiate  his  mind,  show  him  the 
error  with  which  he  is  surrounded,  and  bring  him  to  a  sense  of  the 
duplicity  that  has  been  practised  on  him;  and  discover  to  his  mind 
the  various  forms  of  church  polity  the  world  has  witnessed; — the 
dire  effects  of  corrupt  systems,  priests,  and  power  set  forth  in  the 
history  of  the  church.  Then  if  a  love  of  power,  or  some  of  its 
auxiliaries  has  not  gained  the  ascendency  in  his  heart;  he  trembles 
at  the  ruin  which  stares  him  in  the  face,  and  he  honestly  inquires, 
"What  wilt  thou  have  me  to  doVy  Otherwise  he  must  recede  from 
the  light,  and  convinced  of  error,  persist  in  his  course,  and  be  the 
willing  vassal  of  priestly  power,  which  neither  reason,  the  history 
of  the  church,  scripture,  nor  his  own  conscience  can  approve. 

Anti-Episcopal. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

Persecutions  of  reformers  for  joining  Union  Societies,  most  incon- 
sistent with  propriety  or  benevolence.  The  real  design  of  those 
Societies. 

That  the  agent  and  prosecutors  were  altogether  reckless  of  the 
cause  or  fate  of  reformers;  that  they  had  no  thought  of  justice,  but 
with  undeviating  purpose  laboured  to  make  an  impression  on  the 
Methodist  public,  favourable  to  their  course  of  cruel  and  unprinci- 
pled persecution,  will  be  more  clearly  seen  by  turning  attention  to 
the  following  remarks,  introductory  to  this  paper.  The  travel- 
ling preachers  in  different  places,  had  expelled  reformers  for  having 
joined  Union  Societies  a  considerable  length  of  time  before  the 
commencement  of  similar  proceedings  in  Baltimore.  In  Bedford 
county,  Tennessee,  the  friends  of  reform  had  a  meeting  in  Feb- 
ruary, 1825,  preparatory  to  the  formation  of  a  Union  Society. — 
Nothing  more  was  done,  than  to  subscribe  a  paper  and  appoint  a 
committee  to  prepare  a  constitution  to  be  presented  at  a  meeting 
in  the  month  of  May,  following. 

In  April,  Mr.  James  Gwinn,  their  presiding  elder,  for  this  offence, 
proceeded  at  a  quarterly  meeting  to  read  out  the  names  of  fourteen 
members,  who  lived  in  different  circuits.  They  may  say  in  truth, 
that  these  brethren  were  not  expelled  for  being  members  of  the 
Union  Society;  it  was  not  yet  formed; — but  they  were  willing  to  be 
members,  and  were  making  preparation  to  organize,  and  for  that 
willingness,  in  the  opinion  of  Mr.  James  Gwinn,  they  merited  ex- 
pulsion. 

In  September,  1826,  we  were  informed  of  the  expulsion  of 
brethren  in  North  Carolina,  for  being  members  of  the  Granville 
Union  Society.  A  few  days  after  learning  that  such  a  society  had 
been  organized,  Benton  Field  sent  to  each  of  the  several  individ- 
uals, a  letter  of  reproof,  "for  their  unscriptural  and  peace  de- 
stroying conduct," — and  said  he,  "if  you  see  proper  to  yield  to  re- 
19 


142 


proof,  so  far  as  to  engage  in  future  to  leave  off  such  pernicious 
conduct,  I  shall  rejoice  to  hear  the  same;  but  if  you  refuse,  you 
will  thereby  bring  me  under  the  necessity  of  calling  you  to  account 
before  the  church,  to  answer  for  your  conduct." 

The  brethren  felt  no  obligation  to  obey  such  a  tyrannical  man- 
date; and  according  to  Mr.  Field's  threat,  they  were  cited  to  trial, 
having  been  charged  with  "uniting  to  sow  dissentions,  by  inveigh- 
ing against  the  discipline  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church." 
Mr.  Field  endeavoured  to  substantiate  the  charge;  but  failing,  he 
put  the  question  in  the  following  words.  "All  you  who  think  their 
conduct  will  have  a  bad  effect,  will  signify  it  by  rising  up."  A 
majority  arose — and  the  brethren  were  expelled.  A  short  time 
afterwards,  the  preacher  in  charge  of  the  Tar  River  circuit,  had 
three  or  four  brethren  expelled,  for  joining  the  Union  Society. — 
These  acts  of  violence  were  practised  first  in  February,  1825,  in 
Tennessee;  and  before  October,  1826,  in  North  Carolina.  For 
having  been  accessary  to  the  formation  of  a  Union  Society  in  the 
former,  and  for  having  joined  such  societies  in  the  latter,  reformers 
were  expelled.  The  reader  is  requested  to  take  particular  notice 
of  these  facts,  of  the  dates  of  their  occurrence,  and  of  the  nature 
of  the  offence  with  which  they  were  charged  by  the  preacher,  viz: 
1 'uniting1  to  sow  dissentions,  by  inveighing  against  the  discipline  of 

the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church."  When  our  prosecutors  were 

gathering  extracts,  to  justify  the  expulsion  of  reformers  for  being 
members  of  Union  Societies,  they  ought  to  have  selected  some 
such  as  the  following,  which  is  printed  in  the  Mutual  Rights  for 
February,  18*26,  vol.  II.  with  the  signature  of  Paul.  It  reports  the 
real  design  for  which  Union  Societies  were  formed. 

"It  is  a  just  remark,  that  without  system,  nothing  of  importance 
can  be  effected.  System  is  as  essential  to  all  the  studies  and  oper- 
ations of  men,  as  light  is  to  their  labours.  It  matters  not  how 
complex  the  subject,  if  it  be  reduced  to  system,  order  immediately 
arises  out  of  confusion,  light  beams  through  the  darkness,  and  the 
whole  becomes  intelligible  to  the  mind  at  a  glance.  Nor  is  it  of 
material  consequence  how  difficult  the  enterprize,  if  those  who 
engage  in  it,  reduce  their  operations  to  system,  and  proceed  on  a 
wisely  organized  plan.  If  their  object  be  lawful  and  their  cause 
righteous,  they  must  succeed  in  the  very  nature  of  things.  Re- 
flecting on  the  cause  of  reform  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
we  have  been  highly  gratified,  to  witness  the  judicious  and  sys- 
tematical plan  of  operations  adopted  by  the  reformers: — Their  grand 
object  appears  to  be,  the  introduction  of  a  well  balanced  form  of 
government  into  their  church.  This  is  certainly  an  object  worthy 
of  the  men  who  have  engaged  in  its  pursuit;  and  if  effected,  will 
reflect  honour  upon  their  memories,  and  confer  a  blessing  on  the 
church,  the  benefits  of  which,  will  be  felt  to  the  end  of  time.  The 
means  they  are  using  to  effect  this  desirable  end,  are  at  once  simple 
and  efficient. 

"The  first  means  employed  by  them,  is  the  press  with  its  powerful 
energies.  This  is  an  engine,  which,  when  guided  by  the  unerring 
light  of  truth,  is  mighty  in  pulling  down  the  strong  holds  of 


143 


error,  and  in  establishing  the  civil  and  religious  liberties  of  man, 
on  a  basis  not  easily  to  be  shaken.  It  was  with  this  engine,  guided 
by  the  light  of  reason  and  revelation,  that  Luther  made  the  papal 
power,  which  had  subjugated  all  Europe  to  its  domain,  tremble  to 
its  centre;  and  gave  priestly  domination  a  defeat,  from  which  it 
can  never  recover.  And  it  is  by  this  engine,  at  no  distant  day,  that 
every  species  of  usurpation  and  superstition  is  destined  to  be  over- 
thrown, to  rise  no  more  forever. 

"Another  means  employed  by  the  reformers  to  effect  their  pur- 
pose, is,  that  of  associating  in  companies,  called  "Union  Socie- 
ties." These  are  composed  of  pious,  decided  reformers;  are  regu- 
larly organized,  and  correspond  with  each  other  on  all  subjects  of 
importance  to  the  cause  of  reform.  The  advantages  attendant  on 
these  associations,  are  numerous. 

"1.  They  are  productive  of  much  good  to  all  the  members  of  each 
society,  respectively.  They  introduce  the  reformers  of  several 
states  and  counties  to  a  personal  acquaintance  with  each  other, 
and  to  a  knowledge  of  their  respective  views  and  wishes;  and  mu- 
tually edify  and  strengthen  all  the  members  of  the  association.  In 
the  discussion  of  topics,  the  warmth  of  one  member  is  corrected 
by  the  cool  deliberation  of  another.  And  the  fears  and  despond- 
ency of  one  man  are  removed  by  the  encouraging  arguments  and 
stimulating  hopes  of  his  brother.  While  the  information  received 
from  all  quarters,  gives  to  every  member  a  comprehensive  view  of 
the  progress  of  reforming  principles  in  the  church. 

"2.  Union  Societies  are  mutually  beneficial  to  each  other.  By 
corresponding  with  each  other,  they  keep  all  the  reformers  advised 
of  every  important  transaction  within  the  bounds  of  their  respec- 
tive districts.  No  reformer  can  be  persecuted,  even  in  a  corner, 
without  its  being  speedily  known  to  all  the  reformers  in  the  United 
States.  They  furnish  a  mutual  support;  for  if  the  members  of  one 
Union  Society  are  persecuted  or  maltreated,  they  make  common 
cause  with  the  sufferers,  and  use  their  utmost  effort  to  obtain  for 
them  redress  of  grievances.* 

"3.  They  are  beneficial  to  the  church.  They  prevent  many  per- 
sons from  withdrawing,  who  otherwise,  are  fully  prepared  to  leave 
her  communion;  and  some  who  had  actually  departed,  have  been 
induced  to  return,  and  are  now  united  with  their  brethren  in  the  good 
cause  of  reform. 

"4.  Union  Societies  will  greatly  promote  the  cause  of  reform,  by 
concentrating  the  views  of  the  whole;  and  presenting  to  the  General 
Conference,  petitions  from  all  parts  of  the  United  States,  which  shall 
speak  the  same  language  and  breathe  the  same  spirit.  This  last 
particular  is  a  very  important  one;  the  want  of  it  was  severely  felt  at 
the  last  General  Conference;  for  there  was  a  great  want  of  uniform- 
ity in  the  multitude  of  petitions  presented  to  that  body. 

"It  has  been  said,  by  certain  persons,  that  "Union  Societies  favour 
separations."  Those  brethren  will  permit  us  to  say,  that  we  know 

•This  was  one  of  the  chief  reasons  wherefore  the  men  in  power  desired 
their  destruction. 


144 


the  contrary  to  be  the  fact,  and  that  had  it  not  been  for  the  institn> 
tion  of  Union  Societies,  there  would  have  been,  long  ere  this, 
separations  in  more  places  than  one.  It  has  been  said  a  by 
travelling  preacher,  in  the  north,  who  opposes  the  formation  of 
Union  Societies,  that,  "when  the  reformers  are  all  organized,  have 
ascertained  their  strength,  and  petitioned  the  General  Conference 
for  a  redress  of  their  grievances,  and  the  General  Conference  re- 
fuse to  listen  to  them,  they  will  naturally  break  off,  and  form  them- 
selves into  a  separate  church." 

"Now  we  would  ask,  does  this  good  brother  suppose,  that  the 
mere  circumstance  of  the  reformers  being  organized  into  Union  So- 
cieties, will,  in  the  event  of  the  General  Conference  refusing  to 
listen  to  them,  necessarily  induce  them  "to  break  off,  and  form 
themselves  into  a  separate  church?"  Or  does  he  mean  to  say,  if 
they  shall  not  be  organized,  they  will  have  neither  sense  nor  spirit 
enough  to  come  to  an  understanding  among  themselves  on  the 
question  "of  breaking  off,"  if  breaking  off  be  absolutely  necessary? 
If  the  former  be  his  meaning,  we  are  inclined  to  think,  it  will  be 
neither  naturally  nor  necessarily  the  case.  What  will  prevent  the 
Union  Societies  from  remaining  within  the  pale  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church?  Might  they  not  still  cleave  to  her  with  as 
much  tenacity  as  they  do  now?  We  admit,  that  a  refusal  on  the 
part  of  the  General  Conference,  to  listen  to  the  reasonable  requests 
of  the  reformers,  would  be  a  serious  trial  to  all  of  them  and  would 
produce  some  important  additions  to  the  plan  of  operations;  but 
it  by  no  means  follows,  that,  therefore,  they  will  naturally  or  neces- 
sarily leave  the  church,  and  organize  a  new  one. 

"If  the  latter  be  his  meaning,  we  will  take  the  liberty  to  say,  he 
is  much  mistaken;  for  if  there  were  no  Union  Societies  in  the 
United  States,  and  it  were  made  manifest,  that  the  proper  time  was 
come  to  raise  up  a  new  church,  there  would  neither  be  men  nor 
means  wanting  to  effect  the  object. 

"But  why  all  these  foreboding  fears  of  separation?  And  why  make 
this  a  ground  of  opposition  to  Union  Societies?  If  we  are  to  be- 
lieve our  brethren,  which  we  really  do,  they  wish  us  to  depart.  Yea, 
some  of  their  leading  men  have  requested  us  to  do  so,  again  and 
again.  Why  then  will  they  clamour  against  us  for  adopting  a  measure, 
which  they  say,  will  "naturally"  take  us  off?  If  our  "principles 
are  pernicious,"  and  if  "the  reformers  are  like  tares  among  the 
wheat,"  the  more  carefully  and  effectually  we  collect  them  together, 
with  intention  to  remove  them,  the  better  it  will  be  for  the  church. 
Indeed,  to  be  consistent,  our  old-side  brethren  should  furnish  us 
with  every  facility  to  collect  those  noxious  weeds,  and  to  remove 
them  hence.  But  we  will  assure  our  brethren,  that  we  have  no 
desire  to  leave  the  church;  but  if  we  are  to  go  out,  then,  "verily, 
let  them  come  themselves  and  fetch  us  out."  paul. 

The  foregoing  paper  could  not  have  been  misunderstood.  It 
most  explicitly  makes  known  the  objects  contemplated  by  reform- 
ers, in  organizing  the  Union  Societies.  It  as  clearly  makes  known 
the  fact,  that  these  societies  were  intended  to  secure  the  integrity 


145 


of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  at  the  same  time  that  they 
were  expected  to  ensure  reform.  It  also  must  satisfy  any  candid 
reader,  that  as  certainly  as  we  had  a  light  to  call  the  attention  of 
the  Methodist  public  to  the  subject  of  a  reform  in  their  church 
government,  we  also  had  a  right  to  do  so  in  a  systematic  way.  It 
follows  that  any  attempt  to  hinder  the  formation  of  Union  Socie- 
ties, or  to  break  them  up,  when  formed,  was  in  every  instance  a  di- 
rect act  of  opposition  to  the  labours  of  reformers,  as  well  as  a  vio- 
lation of  our  rights. 

If  however  there  should  still  remain  a  doubt  on  the  mind  of  the 
reader,  respecting  the  objects  of  these  Union  Societies,  his  atten- 
tion is  requested  to  the  following  occurrence. 

The  different  seceders  were  invited  by  a  circular  sent  in  every 
direction,  to  meet  in  New  York,  and  form  a  constitution  for  a  new 
Methodist  Church.  An  application  was  made  through  a  special 
messenger  to  the  Union  Society  of  Baltimore,  to  send  up  a  dele- 
gation, to  co-operate  with  them.  The  application  was  met  in  a 
manner  consistent  with  our  public  declarations  on  the  subject,  as 
will  be  seen  by  a  perusal  of  the  letter  sent  in  reply,  with  the  sig- 
nature of  brother  John  Chappell,  the  president  of  the  society. 

Baltimore,  February  15th,  1826. 

Dear  Brethren, 

Your  communication  upon  the  subject  of  a  convention  for  the 
purpose  of  uniting  and  consolidating  the  different  societies  of  Dis- 
senting Methodists,  was  received  by  the  hand  of  the  Rev'd.  Sam- 
uel Budd.  The  respectful  manner  of  your  application  to  us,  to 
unite  with  you  for  the  accomplishment  of  this  object,  is  duly  ap- 
preciated, and  a  suitable  acknowledgement  is  hereby  respectfully 
tendered  to  you  in  return. 

It  must  be  obvious,  however,  to  every  intelligent  member  of 
your  association,  as  well  as  to  us,  that  such  a  measure,  if  effectual, 
would  produce  in  regard  of  us,  a  result  the  reverse  of  the  object 
which  we  have  in  view.  In  the  number  of  the  Mutual  Rights,  for 
August,  18*25,  page  %  we  have  made  the  declaration  to  the  world, 
that  we  have  no  design  to  separate  from  the  church,  much  less  to 
divide  it;  but  on  the  contrary,  that  we  are  labouring  to  prevent 
secessions  and  divisions.  Our  Union  Society  has  organized  itself, 
and  instituted  the  publication,  called  the  Mutual  Rights,  with  in- 
tention to  show  to  dissatisfied  brethren,  that  a  struggle  is  making, 
and  will  be  continued,  for  the  accomplishment  of  a  better  state  of 
things,  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  In  doing  this  thing, 
we  intended  to  prevent  secessions,  and  consequently,  any  participa- 
tion in  the  measures  which  you  propose,  would  be  inconsistent 
with  our  avowed  intentions. 

John  Chappell,  President. 

With  the  foregoing  exposition  of  the  true  character  and  design 
of  Union  Societies,  the  friends  of  truth  and  equal  rights,  will  be 
prepared  to  perceive  the  amount  of  the  injury  done  to  reformers, 
by  the  expulsions  in  Tennessee  and  North  Carolina.    And  it  ought 


146 


not  to  be  considered  to  have  been  improper  on  our  part  to  have 
rebuked  such  tyrannical  proceedings  with  suitable  pungency.  In 
the  notices  that  will  be  taken  of  the  remaining  extracts,  as  they 
appear  in  the  Narrative  and  Defence,  references  will  be  made  to 
the  occasions  which  were  in  view  of  the  printing  committee,  when 
the  papers  which  have  been  "indicated"  were  severally  admitted 
for  publication. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

Timothy,  alias  Rev.  George  Brown's  Defence  of  himself,  on  account 
of  extracts  from  his  address  to  the  junior  Bishop.  This  paper  was 
written  in  the  year  1827.  It  was  recently  revised,  by  request,  and 
forwarded  for  insertion  in  this  review. 

In  all  cases  of  controversy,  there  is  danger  of  an  undue  excite- 
ment of  the  passions.  This  fact  may  receive  a  practicable  illustra- 
tion, by  an  appeal  to  the  history  of  all  the  controversies  that  have 
ever  been  carried  on  in  church  or  state.  Man  is  but  man,  in  whatever 
condition  he  may  be  placed;  and  to  engage  him  in  controversy,  is 
to  surround  him  with  circumstances,  calculated  to  enlist  his  pas- 
sions; this  point  must  be  evident  to  all  candid  men,  of  the  least 
observation. 

Our  passions  generally,  become  enlisted,  in  proportion  as  we 
conceive  the  subject  of  discussion  to  involve  important  interests. 
We,  our  friends,  the  church,  the  world,  are  all  concerned,  it  may 
be  in  the  decision.  Multitudes  yet  unborn  may  have  a  heavy  stake 
in  this  affair. — Human  happiness  may  be  affected  by  it  in  this 
world,  and  in  the  world  to  come,  to  an  extent  not  easily  known. 
It  will,  therefore,  be  found  extremely  difficulty,  if  not  impossible, 
to  make  a  subject,  on  which  so  much  appears  to  hang,  a  mere 
question  of  intellectual  investigation,  from  which  all  feeling  is  to 
be  entirely  excluded.  Were  men  turned  into  angels,  this  thing 
might  be  expected.  We  conclude,  therefore,  that  candid  allow- 
ances should  be  mutually  made,  for  the  frailties  of  our  common 
nature;  and  that  we  should  labour  diligently  and  prayerfully  to  rule 
our  own  spirits  in  such  a  manner,  as  to  allow  the  present  contro- 
versy in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  to  be  carried  on,  as  fully 
as  possible,  under  the  influence  of  reason,  and  in  strict  accordance 
with  the  holy  word  of  God. 

In  the  course  of  this  controversy,  our  minds  are  sometimes  struck 
with  a  kind  of  superstitious  fear,  and  we  feel  ourselves  considera- 
bly embarrassed.  If  the  subject  were  of  a  different  character,  if  it 
were  some  philosophical  or  political  question,  if  it  were  some 
question  of  science,  not  so  intimately  associated  with  religion,  if 
it  did  not  draw  around  it,  so  much  apparent  sacredness;  we  could 
proceed  with  more  firmness,  and  should  consider  our  church  gov- 
ernment, as  legitimate  a  subject  of  intellectual  investigation,  and 
as  open  to  the  public  eye,  as  any  other  in  the  world.  Aye,  and 
many  of  our  people,  who  still  remain  silent,  would  come  forth  to 
our  help,  and  render  important  service  to  our  cause.    Now,  why  is 


147 


it,  that  we  attach  all  this  sacredness  to  church  government?  Why 
does  the  tongue  faulter,  the  head  become  giddy,  and  the  heart 
faint,  when  we  enter  upon  an  investigation  of  the  high  claims  of 
the  itinerant  clergy  of  our  church?  Is  it  because  the  polity  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  all  its  details  is  actually  from  hea- 
ven, and  was  revealed  to  doctor  Coke  and  Francis  Asbury,  on  the 
holy  mount?  No  man  will  pretend  this.  The  fact  is,  all  ecclesias- 
tical establishments,  as  well  as  civil,  are  of  an  earthly  growth.  They 
are  alike  the  offspring  of  human  reason,  and  of  human  weakness  too. 
All  such  establishments  are  fit  subjects  for  rational  investigation, 
and  no  superstitious  sacredness,  drawn  around  them  by  the  craft  of 
either  kings  or  priests,  should  save  their  arbitrary  principles,  from  a 
just  exposure  to  the  light  of  open  day. 

If  reformers  are  not  continually  on  their  guard,  "the  fear  of 
man,"  that  always  "bringeth  a  snare"  may  prove  injurious  to  our 
cause.  The  church  authorities  are  beginning  to  array  themselves 
against  us,  not  to  argue,  but  to  punish.  It  will  require  no  little 
mental  and  moral  energy,  to  look  these  men  in  the  face  and  not  fear. 
No  matter  how  good  our  cause  may  be; — no  matter  how  ably 
it  has  been,  or  can  be  supported  by  arguments  of  Stirling  worth;— 
our  opponents  have  the  power  to  punish,  and  are  beginning  to  em- 
ploy their  punitive  power  against  us.  To  write  arguments  with 
becoming  independence,  or  examine  them  impartially,  will  be  no 
easy  matter,  while  men  in  power  are  holding  over  us,  all  the  terrors 
of  an  unjust  excommunication  from  the  church  of  God.  We  will, 
however,  quiet  our  fears  the  best  way  we  can,  and  address  our- 
selves to  the  task  of  making  replication  to  the  "Narrative  and  De- 
fence," so  far  as  we  are  concerned. 

My  present  undertaking  is  extremely  delicate.  Two  of  our 
bishops  will  be  concerned  in  my  remarks,  both  of  whom  I  really 
wish  to  honour,  on  the  account  of  their  age,  talents  and  great  moral 
worth.  I  cannot,  however,  forsake  the  high  ground  of  free  and  in- 
dependent  inquiry  on  their  account.  This  I  trust,  they  do  not  wish. 
In  my  observations  I  desire  to  move  forward,  with  cautious  and  un- 
wavering steps,  and  with  an  unfaultering  voice,  speaking  the  truth 
in  love. 

I  shall  commence  with  the  case  of  our  senior  bishop,  noticed  in 
the  Narrative  and  Defence,  p.  56.  It  would  have  been  better,  if 
my  meaning  had  been  more  fully  explained  and  guarded,  in  the  ad- 
dress to  the  junior  bishop,  where  it  is  said,  uand  our  senior  bishop 
is  arched  over  the  whole."  It  never  entered  into  my  mind,  that  any 
one  acquainted  with  the  arrangement  of  matters  among  the  bishops, 
at  the  General  Conference,  of  1824,  would  misunderstand  me  on 
that  point.  In  this  matter,  it  seems,  I  was  mistaken.  I  owe  to 
bishop  McKendree  for  whom  I  entertain  the  highest  respect,  I  owe 
it  to  myself,  and  to  the  community  at  large,  to  say  definitely,  what 
I  did  mean.  This  thing,  for  which  the  seven  prosecutors  "were 
not  prepared"* — "this  accusation  of  usurping  an  arch  episcopal 
authority" — this  taunting  appellation" — "this  biting  sarcasm" — 

*  He  was  not  informed,  respecting'  the  Agent. 


148 


"this  unfeeling  insult" — "this  bitter  phillipic,"  as  these  very  amia- 
ble brethren,  in  the  overflowings  of  their  christian  charity  have 
seen  proper  to  call  it,*  can,  I  hope,  be  so  explained,  as  to  do  no 
one  any  harm;  and  that  too  without  any,  the  slightest  departure 
from  the  truth,  as  it  is  in  Jesus. 

I  did  not  intend  to  convey  the  idea,  that  our  senior  bishop  had 
"usurped  an  arch-episcopal  authority,"  or  that  in  any  sense  he  was 
"legally  superior"  to  his  colleagues.  I  only  meant  that  on  the  part 
of  the  General  Conference,  or  the  other  bishops,  perhaps  both;  on 
the  principles  of  courtesy,  not  of  law  or  usurpation,  a  relation  was 
now  given  to  Mr.  McKendree,  which  might,  in  the  very  nature  of 
things,  eventuate  in  the  establishment  of  an  arch-episcopal  or  a 
patriarchal  authority,  over  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. — In 
other  words,  I  meant  that  by  an  arrangement  entered  into  at  the 
last  general  conference,  not  in  strict  accordance  with  former  usage, 
or  the  rule  of  our  discipline  (p.  25.)  which  requires  our  bishops  se- 
verally, "to  travel  through  the  connexion  at  large,"  bishops  Roberts 
and  Soule,  were  restricted  to  the  south,  as  to  labour  and  support. 
Bishops  George  and  Hedding  to  the  north,  as  to  labour  and  support. 
And  that  our  senior  bishop,  without  any  notice  of  superannuation  at 
all,  had  the  whole  connexion  for  his  field;  and  as  to  labour  and 
support  was  at  home  in  the  north,  and  at  home  in  the  south,  or  in  the 
language  of  the  address,  on  the  score  of  courtesy,  not  of  legality, 
or  of  usurpation,  he  was  "arched  over  the  whole." 

Full  credit  is  here  intended  to  be  given  to  our  senior  bishop  for 
"his  faithful  labours" — "his  devoted  life" — "his  long  and  valuable 
services  to  the  church,"  but  to  me  it  did  appear  that  in  the  above 
arrangement  a  bad  precedent  had  been  set.  I  calculated  that  each 
succeeding  senior  bishop,  might  claim  to  be  similarly  situated,  until 
this  thing  would  grow  into  a  regular  usage  in  the  church,  and  final- 
ly be  established  by  the  General  Conference  as  a  law  in  our  Israel. 
All  history  will  attest  the  fact,  that,  in  all  ages,  and  in  all  countries, 
civil  and  ecclesiastical  power,  has  maintained  its  onward  march,  from 
less  to  more,  in  this  silent,  and  almost  unnoticed  manner.  May  1 
not  hope  that  this  explanation  will  be  deemed  satisfactory  by  all 
men  of  candour;  and  that  even  the  seven  prosecutors  themselves, 
will  admit  my  explanations,  and  that  in  future,  they  will  no  more, 
in  an  ill  natured  way,  take  the  very  worst  meaning  they  can,  out  of 
a  brother's  words,  and  then  fall  on  him  in  an  unmerciful  manner, 
with  their  "taunting  appellations" — "biting  sarcasms" — "unfeel- 
ing insults," — and  "bitter  phillipicsr"  How  their  "Narrative  and 
Defence,"  blooms  with  these  ungodly  flowers,  which  send  forth  an 
ill  savour!  I  have  understood  from  as  high  authority  as  any  in  the 
church,  that  this  matter,  respecting  the  "arch  over  the  whole,"  is 
pretty  generally  understood  to  the  north,  as  I  have  now  explained 
it,  and  since  the  members  of  our  conference  said  nothing  to  me  on 
this  subject,  I  infer,  that  they  generally  understood  it  in  this  way. 
In  all  probability,  it  would  have  been  interpreted  thus,  by  the  pro- 

*  These  pithy  sentences  are  to  be  placed  to  the  credit  of  the  w  riter  of  the 
Narrative  and  Defence,  not  of  the  seven  prosecutors. 


149 


securing  committee  themselves;  but  for  "the  infelicity  of  the  times," 
and  the  great  work  to  be  accomplished.  "Carthage  must  be  de- 
stroyed."— In  other  words,  by  whatever  means,  radicalism  must  be 
put  down  . 

The  Rev.  Jesse  Lee,  in  his  "History  of  the  Methodists,"  ob- 
serves in  reference  to  the  title  "bishop,"  that,  "this  was  the  first 
time  (1787,)  that  our  superintendents  ever  gave  themselves  the  title 
of  bishops  in  the  minutes.  They  changed  the  title  themselves,  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  conference;  and  then  at  the  next  confer- 
ence, they  asked  the  preachers,  if  the  word  bishop  might  stand  in 
the  minutes,  seeing  it  was  a  Scripture  name,  and  the  meaning  of 
the  word  bishop,  was  the  same  with  that  of  superintendent.  Some 
of  the  preachers  opposed  the  alteration,  and  wished  to  retain  the 
former  title,  but  a  majority  of  the  preachers  agreed  to  let  the  word 
bishop  remain,"  p.  128. — On  this  piece  of  our  history  we  remark, 
1st.  That  to  all  human  appearance,  the  motive  for  taking  the  "title 
bishop"  was  a  good  one.  "It  was  a  Scripture  name."  And  cer- 
tainly all  christians  should  be  allowed  to  cleave  close  to  the  Scrip- 
tures. 2d.  No  man  at  that  time,  would  have  thought  of  charging 
doctor  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury,  with  ambition  in  effecting  this  change 
of  title.  All  allowed  as  the  word  ((bishop,  meant  the  same  as  the 
word  superintendent,"  that  no  increase  of  power  could  be  expect- 
ed by  the  change.  How  great  the  disappointment!  The  change 
once  effected,  Methodist  episcopacy  became  independent  of  Mr. 
Wesley,  and  an  increase  of  power  did  follow.  3d.  But  suppose 
no  increase  of  power  had  followed  this  change  of  title,  Messrs. 
Coke  and  Asbury,  were  to  blame,  for  taking  the  responsibility  on 
them,  of  "changing  the  title  themselves,  w  ithout  the  consent  of  the 
conference."  Aye,  and  contrary  to  the  directions  of  Mr.  Wesley, 
under  whose  authority  they  acted.  4th.  I  think  it  is  pretty  clear, 
that  "our  fathers"  did  feel  themselves  a  little  to  blame  in  this  mat- 
ter. That  in  fact,  they  had  gone  entirely  too  far,  or  why  did  they 
humble  themselves,  and  "ask  the  preachers  at  the  next  conference, 
if  the  word  bishop  might  stand  on  the  minutes."  5th.  So  it  ap« 
pears,  that  the  "title  bishop"  was  first  taken  without  law  or  consent t 
and  "printed  in  the  minutes,"  according  to  the  sovereign  pleasure 
of  two  Englishmen,  and  at  the  next  conference,  what  was  thus  taken 
by  illegal  seizure,  these  gentlemen  had  the  address,  by  crouching  a 
little,  to  get  confirmed  to  them  by  law — "a  majority  of  the  preachers 
agreed  to  let  the  word  bishop  remain."  "But  some  opposed,"  to 
their  honour  be  it  spoken. 

We  shall  only  trouble  the  reader  with  one  other  passage  from  this 
author; — it  has  respect  to  the  origin  of  presiding  elders.  Mr.  Lee 
informs  us,  p.  183:  "That  such  an  order  has  never  been  regularly 
established  before.  They  had  been  appointed  by  the  bishop  for 
several  years;  but  it  was  a  doubt  in  the  minds  of  the  preachers, 
whether  such  power  belonged  to  him.  The  General  Conference 
now  (1792,)  determined  that  there  should  be  presiding  elders;  and 
that  they  should  be  chosen,  stationed,  and  changedby  the  bishops." 
On  this  portion  of  our  history  we  remark:  1st.  Our  bishops  may 
20 


150 


have  sincerely  thought,  for  aught  we  know,  that  the  prosperity  of 
the  work  required  them  to  appoint  presiding  elders,  "for  several 
years"  before  any  "such  an  order"  had  been  "regularly  established," 
by  any  law  in  our  church.  2d.  This  power,  great  as  it  was,  the 
preachers  conceded  to  them,  for  a  time.  Probably  they  deemed 
such  officers  necessary  to  the  welfare  of  the  church,  and  for  peace 
sake,  declined  laying  in  their  objections  to  the  arbitrary  manner  of 
appointing  them,  by  the  single  will  of  the  bishop  alone,  uncontrol- 
led by  any  law  of  the  church  on  that  subject.  3d.  Even  then  it 
seems,  there  were  "restless  spirits"  in  the  ministry,  who  disapprov- 
ed of  our  bishops  using  more  power  than  had  been  given  them  by 
the  laws  of  the  church.  "It  was  a  doubt  in  the  minds  of  the 
preachers,  whether  such  power  belonged  to  them."  4th.  This 
power,  so  taken,  conceded  and  employed  "for  several  years,"  was 
finally,  (as  in  the  other  case  noticed,)  confirmed  to  our  bishops  by 
law.  "The  General  Conference  now  determined  that  there  should 
be  presiding  elders,"  &c.  5th.  From  both  of  these  quotations  from 
our  own  history,  and  from  many  others  that  might  be  made,  may 
we  not  conclude  without  giving  offence  to  our  present  bishops  or 
to  the  General  Conference  that  probably  concurred  in  the  arrange- 
ment mentioned  in  my  explanation,  that  there  is  at  least  a  call  for 
caution.  What  has  been,  may  be  again.  "The  best  of  men,  are  but 
men  at  the  best."  Our  present  bishops  are  made  out  of  the  same 
kind  of  materials,  that  "our  fathers"  were.  These  are  good  men 
upon  the  whole.  So  were  those.  But  all  fallible  like  ourselves.  A 
concession  made  by  the  juniors  to>the  senior  bishop,  and  accord- 
ed to  him  by  the  General  Conference,  may  really  terminate  in  some- 
thing very  little  expected  or  desired  by  any  of  us.  "A  prudent 
man  foreseeth  the  evil  and  hideth  himself;  but  the  simple  pass  on 
and  are  punished." 

The  prosecuting  committee  are  volunteers,  it  seems,  and  act 
wholly  on  their  own  responsibility;  I  shall  regard  them  accordingly. 
I  will  not  complain  of  their  calling  me  to  answer  at  the  bar  of  the 
entire  community  for  what  I  have  written; — for  there,  it  gives  me 
pleasure  to  stand  with  permission  to  speak  for  myself.  I  will  not 
complain,  that  I  stand  charged  by  these  brethren,  in  company  with 
many  other  valiant  friends  of  christian  liberty,  with  "evil  speak- 
ing"— "slander," — "defamation"  and  "calumny."  To  prove  these 
against  me,  the  extracts  have  been  taken  from  my  "address  to  the 
junior  bishop,"  and  published  to  the  world.  Vain  effort!  But  I 
will  complain  that  I  was  not  called  before  this  tribunal  sooner,  so 
that  my  explanations,  arguments,  fyc.  might  have  saved  the  editorial 
committee,  and  the  Union  Society  in  Baltimore,  an  unjust  expul- 
sion from  the  church  of  the  Lord.  I  will  complain,  that  after  my 
name  was  officially  demanded,  and  given  up  to  Bishop  Hedding; 
after  I  had  on  the  principles  of  pacification  conceded  to  him  all  I 
could,  at  our  last  conference; — still  my  supposed  offences  are  visit- 
ed on  men  who  are  not  responsible  for  them.  If  any  further  suf- 
ferings were  due  for  my  offences,  I  alone  deserved  to  suffer.  I  was 
always  ready  for  my  fate,  and  never  dreamed  that  after  my  name 
was  delivered  up,  the  editorial  committee  or  Union  Society,  were 


151 


any  longer  endangered  by  what  I  had  written.  If  this  is  justice,  I 
am  persuaded  it  is  not  current  every  where.  It  is  not  civil  justice. 
It  is  not  the  justice  of  the  New  Testament.  It  can  only  be  the 
justice  of  inflamed  party  zeal,  from  which  may  heaven  deliver,  even 
our  prosecutors  themselves! 

These  brethren  have  the  goodness  to  assert,  with  all  the  confi- 
dence of  popes,  that  my  "premises  are  false"  p.  56,  respecting  the 
"arch,"  Slc.  and  that  they  "cannot  doubt  the  fallacy  of  my  conclu- 
sions," in  reference  to  the  "march  of  power"  in  the  Methodist  E. 
Church.  But  waiving  for  the  present,  any  notice  of  their  pontifi- 
cal manner,  let  us  suppose,  that  my  premises  as  I  have  explained 
them,  should  turn  out  to  be  true.  May  it  not  follow,  that  my  con- 
clusions respecting  the  "march  of  power,"  are  equally  true?  My 
explanations  are  submitted  to  men  of  candour,  and  my  conclusion 
shall  be  defended  in  due  time.    All  I  ask  is  an  impartial  hearing. 

The  seven  prosecutors  [the  Agent,]  represent  me  as  "accusing" 
bishop  McKendree,  of  "usurping  an  arch-episcopal  authority," 
&c.  and  then  on  the  next  page  they  say,  "this  author  well  knew 
there  existed  no  legal  superiority  among  the  bishops,"  &c.  Mean- 
ing to  be  understood,  I  suppose,  that  with  all  my  knowledge  to  the 
contrary,  I  had  ventured  to  state,  that  there  was  a  legal  superiority 
of  the  senior  bishop  over  his  colleagues.  Unless  this  is  meant, 
their  observation  is  without  point,  as  their  object  was  to  convict  me 
of  slander.  But  they  must  be  favoured  with  uncommon  penetra- 
tion indeed,  to  be  able  to  find  both  of  these  meanings  in  the  words 
used  by  me.  If  I  meant  Mr.  McKendree  was  an  arch-bishop  by 
usurpation,  I  could  not  have  meant,  that  he  had  attained  to  that 
great  dignity  and  authority,  in  a  "legal"  way,  unless  some  rare  ge- 
nius among  the  seven,  will  be  pleased  to  convince  the  community 
at  large,  that  usurpation  and  legality  mean  precisely  the  same  thing! 

For  Mr.  McKendree,  to  become  legally  superior  to  his  episcopal 
colleagues,  it  would  be  necessary  for  him  to  be  advanced  to  that 
eminence  according  to  some  law  in  the  church.  But  as  no  such 
law  exists,  and  as  I  have  not  intimated  its  existence,  nor  yet,  said 
one  word  about  his  "legal  superiority"  to  the  other  bishops,  it  can- 
not, therefore,  be  fairly  inferred,  that  legal  superiority  was  my 
meaning.  As  to  the  1 'usurpation,"  of  which  our  prosecutors  say  I 
have  "accused"  Mr.  McKendree,  that  word  conveys  a  stronger 
idea,  than  any  thing  said  in  my  address  will  justify.  My  words, 
"and  our  senior  bishop  is  arched  over  the  whole,"  can  hardly  be  so 
interpreted  with  fairness,  as  to  mean  "forcible,  unjust,  illegal,  sei- 
zure  or  possession,"  which  is  the  definition  of  the  word  usurpation, 
according  to  Walker.  It  is  true,  no  law  or  usage  of  the  church, 
has  made  any  provision  for  seniors  in  the  episcopacy,  to  occupy 
the  ground  now  assigned  to  Mr.  McKendree.  Yet  as  he  did  not 
force  himself  into  that  situation,  but  on  the  contrary,  was  perhaps 
passive  in  relation  to  it,  or  as  some  say,  was  importuned  by  his  col- 
leagues and  the  General  Conference  to  accept  of  it,  I  was,  therefore, 
never  disposed  to  consider  "the  good  old  man"  as  an  usurper.  Still, 
I  blamed  the  entire  arrangement,  and  am  of  the  opinion  now,  and 
expect  to  continue  of  the  opinion,  that  in  his  case  a  precedent  has 


152 


been  fixed,  the  tendency  of  which  cannot  fail  to  be  injurious.  Let 
this  arrangement  stand,  and  an  arch-episcopal  or  patriarchal  gov- 
ernment over  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  may  be  looked  for 
in  due  time.  On  this  I  calculate,  not  from  any  pretensions  to  the 
spirit  of  prophecy;  but  from  the  natural  tendency  of  the  well  known 
principles  of  human  nature. 

Since  the  prosecuting  committee  have  voluntarily  taken  upon 
them,  to  involve  my  brethren  and  myself  in  the  accustion  of  "wil- 
ful slander,"  and  thus  to  fix  on  us  this  foul  disgrace,  before  the 
whole  community,  let  us  inquire  a  little  into  the  accuracy  of  their 
statements. — They  very  gravely  tell  us,  with  a  view  no  doubt,  to 
magnify  my  supposed  offences,  "We  had  considered  Mr.  McKen- 
dree  as  superannuated." — "We  believe,  moreover,  that  this  exemp- 
tion from  the  burden  and  cares  of  office,  were  asked  and  obtained 
from  the  General  Conference.5'  p.  56.  That  bishop  McKendree 
is  naturally  "superannuated'''  I  most  cheerfully  allow,  but  that  he 
"asked  and  obtained"  an  official  "superannuation  from  the  General 
Conference,"  does  not  appear  from  any  document  now  before  the 
public.  If  the  journals  of  the  General  Conference  contain  any 
account  of  this  fact,  why  were  they  not  made  public?  And  how 
was  I,  or  any  other  person,  to  regard  him  as  officially  superannuated 
without  any  information  to  that  effect?  May  we  not  conclude, 
that  his  superannuation  is  quite  problematical;  seeing  we  have  no 
information  of  it  any  where,  save  in  the  "Narrative  and  Defence," 
a  publication  most  extraordinary  for  inconsistencies,  and  for  severi- 
ty far  exceeding  the  Mutual  Rights. — Perhaps  it  will  be  said,  they 
do  not  positively  assert  that  Mr.  McKendree  was  officially  super- 
annuated. They  only  say,  "we  believe  moreover,  that  this  exemp- 
tion was  asked  and  obtained." 

But  let  me  ask,  to  what  does  all  this  amount?  Why  plainly  to 
this,  namely,  that  our  prosecutors  have  attained  to  the  great  per- 
fection of  being  able  to  believe,  what  will  benefit  themselves  and 
injure  their  opponents,  without  any  evidence  at  all !!  This  is  no 
"new  thing  under  the  sun."  If  the  General  Conference  do  not 
superannuate  our  senior  bishop,  which  I  hold  to  be  pretty  certain,  is 
it  not  strange  that  the  prosecuting  committee  would  take  upon 
them  to  do  it?  Do  they  intend  to  expel  reformers,  superannuate  bishops, 
publish  "Narratives,"  and  like  Jehu,  drive  on  furiously?— if  so,  let 
them  declare  it  openly,  in  the  face  of  the  sun,  that  we  may  all  be 
prepared  for  the  hard  times  to  come. 

So  far  as  the  junior  bishop  is  concerned,  I  really  did  intend,  in 
writing  that  address,  to  speak  in  respectful  terms  of  bishop  Hed- 
ding's  person,  piety,  and  talents.  It  is  a  matter  of  deep  regret,  that 
in  writing  to  a  person  of  his  age,  my  language  should  have  savour- 
ed, in  the  least  degree,  of  familiar  disrespect. — I  here  beg  the 
bishop  to  be  assured,  that  I  only  intended  with  manly  and  becom- 
ing firmness,  to  address  him,  on  the  subject  of  his  opposition  to 
the  cause  of  reform,  as  manifested  at  the  close  of  the  Annual  Con- 
ference, in  Washington,  Pennsylvania.  Had  it  it  not  been  for  this 
opposition,  I  should  probably  have  remained  in  silence  during  this 
ecclesiastical  war,  beholding  the  mustering  forces  on  the  field  of 


153 


conflict,  listening  to  the  increasing  clangor  of  arms,  and  trembling 
with  solicitude  lor  the  success  of  liberal  principles.  Bishop  Hed- 
ding  chose  his  own  time,  place,  and  method  of  opposition.  I  did 
sincerely  believe,  that  I  had  a  right  to  ward  off  the  blow,  if  no  one 
else  did.  And  since  he  did  not  ask  reformers,  what  plan  he  should 
pursue,  in  his  efforts  against  our  cause; — so  neither  was  I  bound 
to  ask  him,  in  what  way  I  should  make  my  reply.  His  opposition 
being  open,  and  public,  and  intended  to  have  a  paralyzing  effect 
on  the  investigation  of  an  entire  conference  of  preachers  and  peo- 
ple, I  did  believe  that  no  private  explanations  that  could  be  given, 
by  letter  or  otherwise,  to  me  or  any  other  aggrieved  brother,  would 
justify  our  passing  over  in  silence,  his  opposition  to  public  discus- 
sions. The  maxim  that  "the  doings  of  the  clergy  are  to  bekept  from 
the  eyes  of  the  people,"  I  did  believe  to  be  a  disgrace  to  any  re- 
formed church.  I  think  so  still.  It  savours  so  strongly  of  the  old 
Roman  Harlot,  and  opens  the  way  for  every  ecclesiastical  abom- 
ination— unless  some  one  will  prove  church  history  false,  and  that 
human  nature  is  purer  than  I  have  hitherto  supposed  it  to  be,  my 
views  on  this  subject  will  probably  remain  unchanged  to  the  end  of 
my  life. 

It  was  under  the  influence  of  such  views  and  sentiments,  the 
address  to  bishop  Hedding  was  prepared,  and  sent  to  the  editorial 
committee  in  Baltimore,  for  publication.  When  it  came  from  the 
press  I  read  it  with  care,  and  corresponded  with  my  brethren,  and 
found  their  sentiments  in  unison  with  my  own,  as  to  its  being  cor- 
rect in  matters  of  fact,  but  somewhat  severe  in  language.  It  was 
with  sentiments  and  feelings  of  profound  astonishment  that  I  read 
Mr.  Hedding's  note  to  doctor  Jennings,  demanding  my  name, 
and  calling  the  address  1 'unjust,  a  misrepresentation  throughout,  and 
a  vile  slander  on  his  character."  My  name  was  forthwith  surren- 
dered to  bishop  Hedding,  under  an  unshaken  conviction,  founded 
on  the  maturest  reflection,  that  I  had  not  treated  him  in  the  man- 
ner reported  in  his  note.*  After  reflecting  awhile,  and  consulting 
with  faithful  friends,  selected  by  bishop  George  and  myself,  from 
both  sides  of  this  controversy,  I  offered  of  my  own  accord,  to  the 
conference  in  Steubenville,  the  following  concessions,  to  be  pre- 
sented to  Mr.  Hedding  by  bishop  George.  I  am  obliged  to  pub- 
lish this  document,  for  the#  purpose  of  correcting  erroneous  im- 
pressions, which  some  of  our  own  preachers  have  taken  much  pains 
to  make;  and  lest  it  should  be  supposed  by  any,  that  in  my  "ex- 
planations and  apologies, "  mentioned  by  the  prosecuting  commit- 
tee, p.  58,  I  had  acknowledged  myself  guilty  of  all  they  charged 
me  with. 

"Having  understood  that  some  of  my  brethren,  are  dissatisfied 
with  me  as  the  author  of  an  address  to  the  junior  bishop,  signed 
Timothy,  I  cheerfully  avail  myself  of  an  opportunity  to  offer  a  few 
remarks  to  the  conference,  on  that  subject.  My  object  in  doing  so, 
is  to  assure  my  brethren,  that  for  peace  sake,  I  am  willing  to  enter 

•We  hold  many  certificates  from  men  of  standing-,  several  of  which  were 
published  in  the  Mutual  Rights,  confirming*  the  truth  of  Mr.  Brown's  state- 
ments in  his  address  to  the  Bishop.  S.  K.  J. 


154 


into  measures  of  pacification.  And  that  I  may  not  be  misled  by 
my  feelings,  and  to  prevent  any  future  misunderstanding  on  this 
subject,  I  have  thought  proper  to  place  my  present  views  and  senti- 
ments on  paper." 

"Peace  is  my  object.  I  concede  therefore,  that  in  two  particu- 
lars in  relation  to  bishop  Hedding,  I  have  erred,  and  failed  to  select 
the  most  excellent  way.  In  the  first  place,  considering  the  age 
and  standing  of  bishop  Hedding,  and  my  own  youth  and  relation 
to  the  church,  I  think  it  would  have  been  more  proper  for  me  to 
have  conversed  with  the  bishop,  or  written  to  him  for  the  purpose 
of  explanation,  before  I  published.  This  seems  to  have  been  re- 
quired by  the  law  of  brotherly  love  and  christian  usage.  I  admit 
and  regret  my  error  in  this  particular.  Secondly,  I  also  concede 
that  in  some  reflections  and  inferences  in  my  address,  I  was  un- 
necessarily severe,  and  that  the  asperity  should  have  been  evaded 
as  tending  to  disagreeable  results  and  unpleasant  excitements. — 
This  I  also  regret:  for  although  I  thought  at  the  time,  that  my  se- 
verity was  justified  by  the  circumstances,  yet  I  now  believe  a  more 
mild  and  cautious  manner  would  have  been  preferable. 

"I  will  farther  concede,  that  I  have  misconceived  the  meaning  of 
bishop  Hedding  in  some  instances,  and  hence  may  have  made  an  ap- 
plication of  his  positions,  beyond  what  he  intended;  but  if  this  was 
the  case,  it  was  an  inadvertency,  no  unfairness  of  construction 
was  intended  by  me,  and  no  departure  from  principle,  truth,  and 
justice.  Nevertheless,  I  do  not  admit  the  charge  by  bishop  Hed- 
ding, of  "injustice,"  "misrepresentation"  and  "slander ." 

"After  mature  reflection,  I  offer  these  explanations  to  the  con- 
ference, as  due  to  bishop  Hedding,  to  them,  and  to  myself:  and  as 
required  by  the  ties  of  our  common  brotherhood,  christian  courte- 
sy, and  the  pacific  principles  of  our  holy  religion. 

George  Brown." 

The  foregoing  concessions  were  deemed  by  my  advisers  and 
myself,  sufficient;  and  as  the  conference,  the  members  of  which 
had  heard  the  bishop's  address,  and  had  read  my  reply  in  the  paper 
signed  "Timothy,"  asked  nothing  further,  I  felt  myself  to  be  toler- 
ably safe,  and  so  the  matter  rested.* 

*At  the  General  Conference  in  Pittsburg,  in  1828,  being"  very  desirous  of  a 
good  understanding-  with  bishop  Hedding-,  I  went  before  the  committee  on 
episcopacy,  at  the  request  of  the  bishop,  and  two  of  the  members  of 
that  conference,  as  I  understood  it,  for  the  purpose  of  a  friendly  explanation. 
When  there,  I  found  that  great  stress  was  laid  by  Mr.  Hedding  on  tuowords, 
viz:  "reform,"  and  "discussion,"  which  he  said  I  had  used,  in  a  sense  far  too 
broad  and  undefined  He  insisted  that  from  the  manner  of  my  using  these 
words,  an  idea  might  be  taken  up,  that  he  was  opposed  to  all  manner  of  "re- 
form," and  all  manner  of  "discussion,"  whereas,  in  his  address  he  had  ad- 
mitted of  reform,  so  far  as  the  election  of  presiding  elders  was  concerned; 
and  he  had  admitted  of  discussion  among  the  preachers  privately.  My  great 
desire  for  an  amicable  adjustment  of  this  affair,  which  the  bishop's  note  to  the 
editorial  committee,  demanding  my  name,  had  made  by  far,  too  personal,  led 
me  to  go  as  far  as  possible  in  the  way  of  concessions.  I  therefore  conceded, 
that  I  had  not  been  sufficiently  careful,  in  distinguishing  the  precise  sense,  in 


155 


The  Baltimore  prosecutors  have  been  pleased  to  say — "There 
does  not  appear  even  from  the  writer's  own  showing,  that  there  was 
any  thing  amiss  in  the  junior  bishop's  valedictory  address  to  the 
Pittsburg  Confererence,"  p.  57.  That  there  was  nothing  morally 
"amiss  in  the  bishop's  address,"  is  most  cheerfully  admitted  by  me. 
In  what  I  have  written,  his  piety,  talents,  and  personal  respectabili- 
ty, have  been  spoken  of  in  a  favourable  manner;  but  that  there  was 
something  "amiss"  in  the  principles  and  policy  of  the  bishop's  ad- 
dress according  to  my  "own  showing,"  I  think  is  very  clear.  In 
order  that  the  reader  may  judge  for  himself  in  this  matter,  I  will 
not  quote  the  paraphrase  on  my  "showing,"  given  by  the  prose- 
cutors in  the  "Narrative  and  Defence;"  but  I  will  quote  from  the 
Mutual  Rights,  vol.  3.  p.  109,  where  my  "showing"  of  the  princi- 
pal facts  of  his  address  may  be  found.  "You  opposed  our  preach- 
ers taking  any  part  in  the  discussions  of  Mutual  Rights:  You  op- 
posed our  members  in  church  fellowship,  having  any  thing  to  do 
with  that  work:  You  supported  your  opposition  by  two  arguments, 
viz:  that  the  Mutual  Rights  would  agitate  the  church;  that  the 
change  called  for  by  reformers,  would  never  be  brought  about,  be- 
cause it  was  not  desired  by  one  in  twenty  of  our  people:  You  then 
gave  us  an  advice  to  be  still,  and  say  nothing,  until  we  got  upon 
the  floor  of  the  General  Conference,  for  there,  and  there  alone,  was 
the  proper  place  to  discuss  such  subjects."  Now  as  the  Pittsburg 
Conference  has  sustained  me,  in  refusing  to  admit  the  charge  by 
bishop  Hedding,  of  ''injustice,  misrepresentation  and  slander,"  of 
course,  the  prosecutors  had  to  take  this  thing  according  to  my 
"own  showing,"  and  make  the  very  best  they  could  of  it;  or  com- 
mence an  open  attack  on  our  entire  conference.  They  prudently 
chose  the  former  of  these  alternatives. 

I  have  shown  bishop  Hedding  to  be  opposed  to  all  public  discus- 
sions of  ecclesiastical  matters,  by  our  preachers  and  people,  any,  and 
every  where,  save  "on  the  floor  of  the  General  Conference,"  and  I 
feel  perfectly  able  to  prove  from  the  "Narrative  and  Defence"  itself, 
that  our  prosecutors  in  their  coolest  and  most  dispassionate  mo- 
ments, did  see  a  great  deal  "amiss"  in  my  "showing"  of  his  ad- 
dress to  the  conference  in  Washington.  They  say,  "we  have 
never  wished  to  prevent  our  brethren  who  differ  from  us  in  opinion, 
from  fully  and  fairly  discussing  the  subject  of  church  government 
in  general,  or  of  our'sin  particular,"  p.  7.    These  prosecutors  did 

which  I  used  the  words  "reform*'  and  "discussion,-"  and  that  possibly,  infer- 
ences might  have  been  drawn,  &c.  which  were  incorrect. 

But  on  the  most  mature  reflection,  I  incline  to  the  opinion,  that  my  con- 
cessions were  hardly  called  for  by  truth.  All  cool-headed,  impartial  men,  would 
understand  me  to  represent  the  bishop  as  oppposing  the  kind  of  "reform" 
contended  for  in  the  Mutual  Rights,  and  not  all  manner  of  reform; — as  op- 
posing "discussion,'*  as  carried  on  in  that  periodical,  and  not  private  "discus- 
sion."— The  very  periodical  then,  in  which  my  piece  was  published,  limited 
the  meaning  of  the  words  reform  and  discussion,  so  as  to  leave  the  bishop  un- 
troubled about  the  little  reform  he  befriended,  and  the  private  discussion  he 
allowed.  See  a  statement  of  this  whole  affair  in  the  4th  vol.  of  the  Mutual 
Rights,  p.  380. 

Geokge  Brows. 

Pittsburg,  June  28th,  1831. 


156 


certainly  see  something  "amiss"  in  the  bishop's  opposition  to  pub- 
lic discussion,  when  they  made  the  above  declaration.  Again  they 
say,  "we  are  not  aware  that  any  injury  would  arise  from  such 
a  controversy,  if  it  were  carried  on  with  proper  temper; — with  a  strict 
regard  to  truth,  and  to  the  feelings  and  characters  of  all  concern- 
ed," ibid. — Here  the  seven  prosecutors  are  in  direct  opposition  to 
the  bishop.  He  was  afraid  of  "agitating"  the  church  to  its  "injury." 
They  are  "not  aware  that  any  injury  would  arise  from  this  contro- 
versy;"— of  course  in  their  cool  moments,  they  allowed  such  efforts 
as  his  to  be  altogether  "amiss."  As  to  "proper  temper" — "a  strict 
regard  to  truth,  and  the  characters  of  all  concerned;"  we  do  not 
desire  liberty  to  violate  these  with  impunity,  and  we  will  count  that 
man  our  friend,  who,  in  a  christian  like  manner,  will  point  out  our 
errors  in  these  respects;  but  would  respectfully  suggest  to  the  pro- 
secuting committee  the  propriety  of  a  strict  attention  to  "truth, 
feeling,  and  character,"  on  their  own  part,  before  they  lecture 
others,  less  deeply  involved  than  themselves.  Our  prosecutors 
farther  say — "In  these  declarations  we  believe  we  speak  the  lan- 
guage of  our  brethren  generally,"  ibid.  Now  what  is  this  but  to 
tell  us  plainly,  that  bishop  Hedding  in  his  opposition  to  public  dis- 
cussion, stands  pretty  much  alone,  and  that  they,  and  the  Metho- 
dists generally,  are  against  him,  and  why  against  him  so  pointedly 
unless  his  efforts  were  "amiss?"  "We  are  prepared,"  they  say, 
"to  follow  the  leadings  of  providence;" — "and  to  adapt  our  econo- 
my to  the  circumstances  of  time  and  place,  in  such  a  way  as  may 
be  deemed  best  calculated,  to  promote  the  glory  of  God,  and  the 
salvation  of  mankind,"  ibid.  Now  in  all  of  this,  the  committee 
seem  to  see  something  "amiss,"  in  such  efforts  as  we  have  shown 
Mr.  Hedding  to  have  made.  He  was  favourable  to  the  election  of 
presiding  elders,  it  is  true.  So  far  he  went  for  reform,  but  no 
further,  and  for  this  much,  little  as  it  is,  I  should  have  given  him 
credit  in  my  address.  But  the  prosecutors  are  disposed  to  "adapt 
our  economy  to  time,  place  and  circumstances,"  as  providence  may 
open  the  way.  This  is  all  we  ask.  Let  us  all  agree  to  discuss  the 
subject  calmly,  and  follow  providence.  If  this  is  done,  our  church 
government  will  certainly  be  altered  for  the  better,  because  we  shall 
then  be  qualified  as  a  people  to  enjoy  a  better.  But  should  the 
right  of  public  discussion  be  denied  us,  and  our  people  be  thereby 
involved  in  profound  and  perpetual  darkness  on  this  subject;  a 
despotism  will  be  the  very  best  kind  of  government  that  they  will 
be  qualified  to  bear,  and  of  course,  providence  will  give  them  no 
other.  Our  brethren  wind  up  on  this  page  by  telling  us,  that  neither 
they,  the  preachers,  nor  our  members,  have  any  "wish  or  desire" 
to  "suppress  inquiry,"  or  to  "prevent  discussion."  Nothing  could 
have  been  more  opposite  to  Mr.  Hedding's  address,  according  to 
my  "own  showing,"  and  yet  strange  to  tell,  in  my  "own  showing" 
of  that  address,  they  can  see  nothing  "amiss"!!!  They  very  grave- 
ly tell  us,  in  their  sage  and  weighty  remarks,  that  bishop  Hedding 
"very  properly  advised  them  (the  conference)  to  postpone  the  dis- 
cussion until  by  themselves  or  their  representatives,  they  should 
have  an  opportunity  calmly  and  deliberately  to  consider  it  on  the 
floor  of  the  General  Conference,"  p.  57.    Now  is  it  not  clear  that 


157 


at  page  57,  they  go  all  lengths  with  reformers,  as  to  the  right  and 
utility  of  free  discussion?  And  is  it  not  equally  clear,  that  in  their 
unguarded  moments,  they  have  contradicted  themselves,  by  going 
the  whole  way  with  the  bishop  in  his  opposition  to  public  discus- 
sion? And  we  are  to  consider  the  bishop's  opposition,  &c.  under 
the  notion  of  very  "proper  advice,"  are  we?  Why  now,  how  hard 
things  are  softened! — What  a  white  washing  committee  is  this! — I 
shall  leave  them  to  reconcile  their  own  contradictions  in  the  best 
way  they  can,  and  shall  conclude  this  part  with  two  observations. — 
1.  If,  according  to  my  "own  showing,"  there  was  nothing  "amiss" 
in  the  bishop's  addre&s,  then  surely  I  have  not  slandered  him,  un- 
less these  seven  wise  men  can  make  it  appear,  that  it  is  slander  in 
reformers  to  state  nothing  "amiss"  of  brethren  in  the  opposition. 
This  is  not  the  first  time  that  speaking  nothing  "amiss"  has  been  con- 
sidered slander,  by  the  supporters  of  the  enormous  claims  of  our 
itinerant  clergy.  2.  Nothing  morally  "amiss,"  is  pretended  in  this 
case,  but  we  do  think  there  was  something  "amiss"  in  the  princi- 
ples indicated  by  Mr.  Hedding's  address,  in  opposition  to  public 
discussion.  His  motives  may  have  been  good.  He  wanted,  no 
doubt,  to  preserve  the  church  from  "agitation,"  and  to  keep  peace 
within  all  our  borders.  But  to  attempt  to  preserve  a  community 
unagitated  and  peaceful,  by  obstructing  or  withholding  the  right  of 
free  and  fair  discussion,  I  contend  is  arbitrary  in  principle,  and  in 
such  a  country  as  ours,  must  tend  to  very  unpleasant  results.  Will 
any  man  in  this  free  and  independent  nation,  venture  in  the  face 
of  open  day,  to  affirm  or  prove  the  contrary?  Such  a  man  will  be 
told  at  once,  by  a  thousand  tongues,  and  by  a  thousand  pens,  that 
science  can  only  advance — that  civilization  can  only  progress — that 
governments  can  only  be  improved,  and  that  religion  itself,  can  only 
extend  its  reign,  in  proportion  as  discussion  is  allowed  on  a  liberal 
scale.  In  speaking  thus,  I  speak  the  language  of  a  great  and  hap- 
py people,  and  I  have  no  doubt,  but  that  I  speak  the  language  of 
bishop  Hedding  too,  in  reference  to  all  subjects  except  this  one.  O, 
how  detestable  is  the  maxim,  that  "the  doings  of  the  clergy  are  to  be 
kept  from  the  eyes  of  the  World."  I  hope  the  day  will  speedily  come, 
when  this  proverb  shall  no  more  be  used  to  the  disgrace  of  our 
Israel. 

I  will  now  answer  to  the  charge  of  ascribing  to  Bishop  Hedding 
"a  thirst  for  power  and  desire  of  dominion  which  is  only  equalled 
by  the  papacy,"  p.  57.  This  is  a  charge  of  some  magnitude,  and 
must  therefore  receive  a  candid  consideration.  If  I  really  have 
conveyed  the  idea,  that  Bishop  Hedding's  "thirst  for  power  and 
desire  of  dominion,"  was  equal  to  that  of  the  popes  of  Rome,  I  am  not 
sensible  of  it.  The  prosecuting  committee  only  adduced  one  pas- 
sage from  my  address  to  Mr.  Hedding,  in  proof  of  this  charge, 
which  is  as  follows: — "We  should  be  more  inexcusable  than  the 
members  of  the  christian  church  in  the  rise  of  popery,  if  we  were 
to  suffer  our  spiritual  rulers  to  enslave  us;  we  have  many  advan- 
tages unknown  to  them,  particularly  the  printing  press.  What  a 
blessing  this  has  been  to  the  world,  what  a  scourge  to  wild  and  law- 
21 


158 


less  ambition'!"  ibid. — In  order  that  it  may  be  seen,  that  their 
charge  is  not  supported  by  this  quotation,  the  reader  will  indulge 
us,  in  submitting  the  following  remarks.  1st.  Bishop  Hedding  is 
no  more  concerned  in  this  passage,  than  the  travelling  preachers 
generally,  for  they  are  the  "spiritual  rulers"  intended.  2d.  Let  it 
be  distinctly  recollected,  that  these  our  "spiritual  rulers,"  have  all 
legislative,  judicial  and  executive  power — all  creed-making,  proper- 
ty controlling,  officer  appointing  power,  now  in  their  own  hands,  and 
Bishop  Hedding,  who  is  presumed  to  speak  the  language  of  at 
least,  a  majority  of  our  itinerant  ministers,  did  strenuously  oppose 
our  preachers  and  members,  publicly  examining  into  this  order  of 
things.  3d.  Although  our  "spiritual  rulers"  have  hitherto  been 
good  men  in  general; — indeed  it  maybe  acknowledged,  that  their 
goodness  so  far,  has  been  almost  the  only  earthly  safe  guard  of  the 
church;  there  being  very  few  redeeming  principles  in  the  govern- 
ment;— yet  this  safe  guard  is  beginning  to  be  less  worthy  of  trustt 
than  formerly.  The  arbitrary  government  of  our  church  is  a  con- 
tinual temptation  to  the  itinerants  to  become  arbitrary.  We  are 
certain  that  long  possessed,  unchecked,  unbalanced,  irresponsible 
power,  is  calculated  to  spoil  the  best  men  in  the  world,  and  as  the 
principles  of  the  government  are  unrighteous  and  enslaving  in  their 
character;  how  then  was  I  to  shut  my  eyes  against  the  direct  ten- 
dency of  this  order  of  things,  to  enslave  our  people,  in  its  practi- 
cal operations?  Dr.  Paley  says,  in  his  evidences  of  Christianity, 
"that  they  who  are  in  possession  of  power,  do  what  they  can  to 
keep  it,"  and  that  "Christianity  does  not  universally  condemn  this 
principle,  because  it  is  not  universally  wrong,"  p.  377.  The  power 
to  do  good,  is  also  the  power  to  do  evil.  Good  men  may  desire  to 
get,  and  keep  power  for  good  purposes;  this  "Christianity  does  not 
universally  condemn."  And  evil  men  may  desire  to  get  and  keep 
power,  for  evil  purposes;  this  Christianity  cannot  allow — and  since 
power,  or  something  else,  may  spoil  any  of  the  frail  sons  of  Adam 
now,  as  well  as  in  former  ages,  and  in  other  countries,  it  therefore, 
clearly  follows,  that  for  our  preachers  to  have  all  this  unchecked, 
irresponsible  power,  in  their  hands,  is  wrong;  because  human  na- 
ture now,  must  be  greatly  altered  from  what  it  used  to  be,  or  it  will 
end  in  absolute  ecclesiastical  slavery.  4th.  In  order  for  this  quota- 
tion to  have  supported  their  charge,  it  should  have  made  our  "spir- 
itual rulers,"  to  be  as  bad  men  as  the  popes  of  Rome;  as  wicked- 
ly athir st  for  power,  and  perfectly  given  up  to  the  "desire"  of  tem- 
poral and  spiritual  "dominion,"  as  they.  This  I  have  not  said, 
neither  came  it  into  my  heart.  Of  course  their  charge  is  wholly 
unsustained  by  this  quotation.  5th.  I  refer  to  popery  in  its  rise, 
without  saying  one  word  about  the  goodness,  or  the  badness  of  the 
ministry  in  those  days.  We  may  suppose  the  teachers  of  religion 
to  have  been  good  men.  We  may  suppose  people  to  have  volun- 
tarily given  their  share  of  church  power,  into  the  hands  of  their 
ministers,  for  the  purpose  of  increasing  their  usefulness:  but  what 
was  the  result?  Ask  history,  it  can  tell.  All  the  sighs,  groans, 
tears  and  miseries,  of  the  papal  world,  from  Constantine  down  to 
the  present  day,  now  call  on  us  to  learu  wisdom,  by  the  folly  and 


159 


miseries  of  others,  and  not  to  play  the  old  game  over  again.  6th. 
As  to  the  "printing  press"  being  a  "blessing  to  the  world,"  do  our 
prosecutors  deny  this?  If  so,  let  them  speak  out,  that  we  may  un- 
derstand them.  Let  them  tell  whether,  in  their  opinion,  matters 
would  not  move  on  much  better,  if  men  of  their  views  could  con- 
trol all  the  "printing  presses"  in  this  nation.  Had  the  first  chris- 
tians been  blessed  with  "printing  presses,"  as  we  now  are,  perhaps 
they  would  have  remained  free  from  ecclesiastical  slavery.  7th. 
As  to  the  "wild  and  lawless  ambition"  spoken  of,  however  applica- 
ble such  a  remark  may  be  to  some  of  the  itinerant  clergy,  yet  it 
never  was  intended  for  them  as  a  body,  as  all  candid  men  must  al- 
low. I  think  that  even  our  prosecutors  might  have  perceived,  that 
as  I  represented  the  "press"  as  a  "blessing  to  the  world,"  in  one 
part  of  the  sentence:  so  in  the  other,  I  meant,  that  it  had  been  a 
scourge  to  the  "wild  and  lawless  ambition"  of  the  world,  and  I  here 
add,  that  the  press  has  been  a  very  necessary  scourge,  on  the  "wild 
and  lawless  ambition"  of  men,  high  in  ecclesiastical  power.  So  may 
it  still  continue  to  be,  and  if  "our  spiritual  rulers"  need  scourging, 
let  them  have  it;  and  let  all  the  people  say  amen. 

Two  of  what  the  committee  are  pleased  to  call  my  "unwarran- 
table inferences,"  must  receive  some  attention.  I  have  inferred 
from  the  bishop's  opposition  to  reform,  and  to  public  discussion,  that 
he  held  the  doctrine,  that  "to  obey  was  enough  for  the  people"  p.  58. 
And  is  this  an  unwarrantable  inference?  Will  the  bishop,  the  pro- 
secutors, or  any  other  thorough  going  old  side  man  affirm  this?  I 
think  they  will  not — and  I  declare  it  to  be  the  very  spirit  of  our 
ecclesiastical  government.  So  far  from  calling  it  an  "unwarranta- 
ble inference,"  these  brethren  ought  to  write  on  their  phylacteries, 
and  wear  it  to  the  house  of  their  solemnities,  in  order  to  let  all  the 
zealous  sons  of  the  church  know,  that  "TO  OBEY  IS  ENOUGH 
FOR  THE  PEOPLE"  CALLED  METHODISTS. 

The  other  inference  from  the  same  premises  was,  that  the 
"bishops  rule  by  a  divine  right,  which  ought  not  to  be  examined,  or 
called  in  question,"  ibid.  The  former  part  of  this  inference,  may 
possibly  be  incorrect,  since  without  believing  in  the  "divine  right" 
of  episcopacy,  he  might  have  manifested  the  same  opposition  to 
reform.  But  the  latter  part  of  the  inference,  namely,  that  the  "right" 
by  which  our  bishops  do  "rule,  ought  not  be  examined  or  called  in 
question"  stands  good,  and  will,  until  the  right  of  free  discussion, 
is  allowed  to  the  whole  church.  The  prosecutors  speak  of  me  as 
"holding  up  the  bishop  to  the  political  execration  of  the  people,"  p. 
58.  This  charge  deserves  particular  attention.  To  support  it  they 
make  the  following  quotation  from  my  address  to  Mr.  Hedding. 
"I  do  sir  think  it  my  duty,  to  hold  up  your  conduct  to  public  view, 
(not  execration)  that  all  men  may  know  what  a  genuine  friend  to  the 
rights  of  man  you  are,  and  how  entirely  republicanism  governs  all 
your  movements,"  ibid. — And  are  the  prosecutors  opposed  to  the 
bishop's  principles  being  known  by  the  community  at  large?  To 
make  them  known  was  all  I  aimed  at.  Must  we  all  get  back  to  the 
hateful  maxim,  that  "the  doings  of  the  clergy" — especially,  the 
principles  and  doings  of  bishops,  "are  to  be  kept  from  the  eyes  of 


160 


the  world?"  No,  indeed,  the  principles  and  conduct  of  all  public  men 
should  be  known,  in  order  that  every  man  may  pass  for  what  he  is 
worth,  and  no  more.  On  the  above  quotation  the  committee  re- 
mark: "Now  would  not  any  man  infer,  from  all  this  vituperation  and 
abuse,  that  the  bishop  had  greatly  infringed  on  this  author's  rights, 
or  uttered  some  opinions  on  government  subversive  of  our  civil 
institutions?  yet  nothing  of  all  this  had  happened,"  ibid. — Here 
we  shall  take  occasion  to  observe:  1st.  The  irony  of  this  piece 
might  have  been  spared,  as  too  nettling  in  its  character;  but  to 
hold  up  the  bishop's  principles  and  "conduct  to  public  view''  for  a 
valuable  purpose,  was  not  "vituperation  and  abuse" — the  real  truth, 
told  for  beneficial  purposes  in  church  or  state,  is  not  abuse  on  public 
officers.  2d.  The  liberty  of  public  discussion,  is  the  indubitable 
right  of  the  church,  as  well  as  the  state. — Bishop  Hedding  did  op- 
pose public  discussion,  any  and  every  where,  save  on  the  floor  of 
the  General  Conference,  and  I  have  not  questioned  his  good  inten- 
tions in  doing  so.  He  no  doubt  meant  to  preserve  the  church  from 
"agitation."  3d.  But  the  course  adopted  by  the  bishop  in  order 
to  accomplish  his  wishes,  in  the  preservation  of  tranquillity,  was  a 
little  unfortunate,  and  can  never  be  reconciled  with  the  rights  of  man, 
or  sound  republican  principles.  God  does  not  save  us  by  destroy- 
ing our  freedom:  so  neither  should  bishops  undertake  to  save  the 
church  from  "agitation,"  by  laying  an  embargo  on  the  liberty  of 
public  discussion — this  the  bishop  did,  with  all  the  force  of  emphatic 
exhortation  and  advice — aye,  he  threw  all  his  influence  against  it, 
before  the  whole  conference  and  many  citizens  who  were  present. 
4th.  The  prosecutors  may  glory  in  declaring  that  my  humble 
"rights  were  not  infringed  upon,"  if  they  will; — they  very  gravely 
tell  us,  that  "nothing  of  all  this  had  happened,"  but  what  is  all  this 
but  to  say,  either  that  I  was  already  a  slave,  and  had  no  rights  at 
all;  or  that  the  bishop  never  opposed  public  discussion,  for  which 
I  contend,  as  a  right  of  the  church.  5th.  Let  some  politician  un- 
dertake to  assuage  the  "agitations"  of  the  American  people,  in  the 
true  style  of  Bishop  Hedding,  by  opposing  public  discussion,  any, 
and  every  where,  save  on  the  floor  of  Congress,  and  see  if  he  is 
not  immediately  charged  from  all  quarters  of  our  happy  country, 
with  "uttering  opinions  on  the  subject  of  government,  subver- 
sive of  our  civil  institutions."  Would  not  Mr.  Hedding  himself 
charge  him? — would  not  our  prosecutors  come  out  long  and  loud 
against  him?  Aye,  and  the  editors  of  the  "Christian  Advocate"  too. 
Let  all  candid  men  reflect  a  little  on  this  matter. 

We  have  one  item  more  to  notice,  and  then  we  are  done.  The 
prosecutors  say: — "As  to  the  stealing  march  of  ecclesiastical  power, 
which  is  complained  of,  the  writer  knew  that  the  march  had  been 
retrograde,"  p.  5S.  Is  this  so?  Have  I,  with  perfect  knowledge 
of  the  contrary,  stated  "the  stealing  march  of  power,"  to  be  on- 
ward? No  truly,  what  I  stated,  I  knew  to  be  the  fact,  and  I  shall 
now  sustain  myself,  by  an  induction  of  particulars,  and  leave  the 
community  to  judge,  whether  "ecclesiastical  power"  has  been  on 
the  "stealing  march,"  backward  or  forward. 


161 


1st.  In  1784,  in  the  city  of  Baltimore,  on  Christmas  day,  at  the 
organization  of  the  government  of  the  Methodist  E.  Church,  the 
itinerant  preachers  did  then,  and  there,  boldly  march  up  to  a  princi- 
ple of  ecclesiastical  polity,  and  take  it  into  their  safe  keeping,  after 
which  the  Roman  clergy  struggled,  by  trick,  stratagem,  and  pious 
fraud,  for  1160  years  before  they  laid  their  hands  upon  it,  and  took 
it  into  their  safe  keeping;  and  when  they  got  it,  the  church  was 
ruined.  The  principle  is  this,  namely,  that  to  the  itinerant  clergy 
alone,  does  pertain  of  divine  right,  all  legislative,  judicial  and  execu- 
tive power,  over  the  whole  church;  leaving  nothing  to  the  local  preach- 
ers and  the  lay  members,  but  absolute  submission  to  their  will,  or  ex- 
patriation from  the  church. — Their  will  officially  expressed,  by  a  de- 
legation of  one  for  every  seven  itinerant  ministers,  in  the  General 
Conference,  is  now  the  law  of  the  church,  against  which  there  is  no  bal- 
ance of  power,  no  check,  or  defence  in  any  way.  A  single  pope  never 
sat  on  St.  Peter's  chair  at  Rome,  for  1160  years,  without  the  elec- 
tive voice  of  the  people,  as  maybe  seen  by  an  appeal  to  Mosheim's 
and  Gregory's  Church  Historys;  but  when  had  our  local  preachers 
and  members  a  voice  in  the  election  of  a  bishop  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church?  Never! 

2d.  In  changing  the  title  of  superintendent,  in  1787,  for  that  of 
bishop,  without  the  consent  of  the  American  Conference.  See 
Lee's  "History  ot  the  Methodists,"  p.  128,  and  contrary  to  the  ex- 
press instructions  of  Mr.  Wesley.  See  "Moore's  life  of  Wesley," 
p.  285,  and  when  becoming  an  independent  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  doctor  Coke,  Mr.  Asbury,  and  the  itinerant  preachers,  did 
abundantly  strengthen  themselves  in  the  possession  of  the  power 
which  they  had  assumed  at  the  time  of  the  organization  of  the  go- 
vernment. 

3d.*  According  to  Lee's  "History  of  the  Methodists,"  p.  183, 
the  power  to  make  presiding  elders,  which  was  first  assumed,  and 
"used  for  several  years"  without  law,  and  was  finally  in  1792,  estab- 
lished to  the  bishops  by  the  General  Conference,  "gave  them  a 
power  over  the  whole  church,"  which  indeed,  "really  looks  alarm- 
ing!" No  man  in  his  senses  will  pretend  that  the  power  of  epis- 
copacy is  weaker  by  the  presiding  elder  system.  This  system  ren- 
ders the  whole  government,  in  its  practical  operations,  vastly  more 
powerful  in  every  way. 

4th.  In  1796,  according  to  Lee's  History,  p.  234,  a  "deed  of 
settlement"  was  got  up,  to  be  carried  into  execution  throughout 
the  whole  connexion,  as  far  as  the  civil  authorities  and  laws  would 
allow.  This  deed  makes  the  property  a  kind  of  common  stock,  or 
at  least,  the  use  of  it  is  made  common  to  all  the  Methodists  in 
every  state  and  in  every  conference.  It  is  placed  under  the  abso- 
lute legislative  control  of  the  "General  Conference,  of  ministers 
and  preachers,"  for  the  people  can  only  use  it  according  to  their 
legislation.  It  is  placed  also  under  the  absolute  appointing  power 
of  the  bishops,  who  have  power  to  put  the  occupants  into  the  pul- 
pits and  parsonages,  without  consulting  any  will  but  their  own. 
Thus,  the  itinerant  clergy,  by  taking  this  anti-christian  hold  of  the 
temporalities  of  the  people,  have  immense  power  over  them.  By 


162 


controlling  the  property,  they  control  the  people  themselves:  ujor 
power  over  a  marts  substance,  really  does  in  most  instances,  amount 
to  a  power  over  his  will."  Is  this  march  retrograde,  or  onward? 

5th.  In  1808,  the  restrictive  instrument,  improperly  called  a  con- 
stitution, was  formed,  by  which  our  bishops  became  officers  for  life. 
The  General  Conference  became  a  delegated  body,  and  the  whole 
government  was  so  saddled  upon  the  Methodist  community,  by  the 
itinerant  ministry  alone,  that  no  vital  changes  can  be  effected  or 
hoped  for,  ivithout  the  consent  of  all  the  Annual  Conferences,  and  a 
vote  of  a  majority  of  two-thirds  of  the  subsequent  General  Confer- 
ence. This  the  bishops  can  easily  hinder,  as  they  hold  all  the  ap- 
pointing power,  and  consequently  all  the  church  livings  in  their 
hands.    This  is  onward  too. 

6th.  In  1820,  if  I  mistake  not,  our  bishops  became  pensioned 
upon  the  book  concern,  at  New  York,  for  all  their  table  expenses. 
Henceforth,  they  are  not  to  know  want  like  other  men.  Their  sup- 
port is  as  certain  as  that  concern  can  make  it.  Numbers  have 
given  them  power.  Wealth  has  given  them  power;  for  what  would 
a  King  be,  with  all  his  arbitrary  principles  of  government,  without 
men  and  money? 

In  this  induction  of  particulars,  we  think  we  have  shown  uthe 
stealing  march  of  ecclesiastical  power"  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  to  be  onward,  fearfully  ''tending  towards  accumulation," 
and  yet  we  are  told  by  the  prosecuting  committee,  because  Mr. 
Wesley's  general  assistant,  and  the  itinerant  preachers  had  done 
pretty  much  as  they  pleased,  before  the  church  had  any  thing  like  a 
settled  government  i.  e.  before  the  revolution,  "that  the  march  of 
ecclesiastical  power  is  retrograde!"  What  candid  man,  who  knows 
any  thing  of  our  history,  can  allow  this?  The  fact  is,  the  princi- 
ples assumed  by  the  itinerant  clergy  in  the  organization  of  the  go- 
vernment are  without  parallel  in  our  country,  for  this  tyrannical 
character;  and  these  principles  the  itinerant  clergy  have  become 
amazingly  strengthened  in,  by  their  various  additions,  and  by 
nothing  are  they  more  strengthened,  than  by  their  firm  grasp  on 
church  property,  through  the  medium  of  the  "deed  of  settlement," 
and  the  constitution,  as  they  call  it,  of  1808 — this  girds  the  govern- 
ment fast  upon  the  people,  and  leaves  them  no  hope,  but  in  eccle- 
siastical expatriation.  George  Brown. 

Steubenville,  May  1st,  1828. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

Miscellaneous  remarks  by  Dissenter,  published  in  January,  1827. 

The  extracts,  from  this  paper,  like  the  rest  of  Dr.  Bond's  selec- 
tions for  his  Narrative  and  Defence,  could  not  have  had  their  in- 
tended effect,  had  they  been  so  exhibited  as  to  have  conveyed  the 
true  and  entire  meaning  of  the  writer.  We  have  revised  the  pa- 
per and  can  find  nothing,  considering  the  occasion  which  produ- 


163 


ced  it,  to  which  we  can  raise  any  reasonable  objection.  It  is  only 
necessary  to  replace  the  extracts  and  read  them  in  their  proper 
connexions  with  the  whole  essay,  to  be  convinced  of  their  truth. 
We  proceed  therefore  to  submit  the  paper  in  its  own  justification. 
In  order  to  assist  the  reader,  the  parts  selected  by  Doctor  Bond, 
will  be  printed  in  Italics;  and  a  few  notes  will  be  appended.  The 
reader  is  requested  in  the  mean  time,  to  keep  it  in  his  recollection, 
that  the  travelling  preachers,  by  the  aid  of  those  under  their  influ- 
ence, had  begun  to  expel  reformers,  for  partaking  in  the  formation 
and  exercises  of  union  societies,  before  these  remarks  were  admit- 
ted into  the  Mutual  Rights. 

Messrs.  Editors, 

Under  the  date  of  October  20th,  I  sent  you  some  thoughts 
on  the  subject  of  reform  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  In 
that  communication  I  briefly  suggested,  first,  that  there  are  multi- 
tudes in  the  bosom  of  our  church,  distributed  over  this  continent, 
who  are  decidedly  favourable  to  many  changes  in  the  government 
of  the  church,  but  who  from  motives  of  prudence,  remain  silent  on 
the  subject,  and  probably  will  continue  to  do  so,  until  this  contro- 
versy shall  assume  some  conclusive  aspect.  Of  the  truth  of  this 
remark  I  have  additional  confirmation  since  the  date  of  my  last. 
I  suggested,  secondly,  that  there  were  many  weighty  reasons  for 
the  silence  and  neutrality  of  our  preachers  and  members,  on  this 
momentous  question,  and  a  principal  one  is,  that  a  system  of  op- 
pressive treatment  and  persecution  has  been  organized  and  acted 
upon,  from  New  England  to  New  Orleans.  It  is  the  policy  and 
practice  of  those  in  rule,  to  place  in  as  obscure  and  irresponsible 
relations  and  stations  as  possible,  all  our  travelling  preachers  who 
are  suspected  of  being  friendly  to  the  proposed  reform  in  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  church,  while  local  preachers,  leaders,  stewards  and 
trustees  are  placed  under  the  ban,  and  in  the  back  ground  of  the 
administration,  for  the  same  reason.  And  to  finish  this  ominous 
specimen  of  papal  manoeuvre,  numbers  have  been  expelled  from 
the  church,  simply  because  they  are  retbrmers.  This  will  doubt- 
less deter  and  intimidate  many,  but  not  all.  There  are  those  who 
will  speak  and  write;  and  there  are  those  who  will  hear  and  read, 
maugre  all  this  threatening  array  of  distrust  and  persecution,  held 
up  to  reformers  in  terrorem:  A  third  remark  was,  that  those  who 
wish  for  reform,  and  act  from  conviction  in  trying  to  obtain  it, 
should  be  firm  and  fearless  in  the  assertion  of  their  rights. 

J  confess  it  is  a  source  of  peculiar  gratification  to  me  to  see  the 
spirit  of  determined  inquiry  so  extensively  diffused  among  our  people, 
notwithstanding  conference  lectures,  pulpit  hints,  and  class  room  les- 
sons to  prevent  it.  These  warning  voices  so  often  lifted  up  in  our 
hearing,  are  the  evident  misgivings  of  power,  and  so  many  proofs 
that  our  arguments  in  favour  of  reform,  are  felt  even  by  those  who  affect 
to  despise  them.  A  fourth  of  my  prefatory  remarks  was,  that  al- 
though much  good  feeling  may  be  lost  in  this  controversy,  yet  as  the 
present  and  future  interests  of  the  church  require  it,  reformers  ought 
not  to  blench  from  their  purpose,  whatever  social  sacrifices  they  may  be 


164 


culled  upon  to  make;  but  ought  to  continue  in  the  church,  and  multiply 
and  vary  their  efforts,  until  the  existing  anomaly  of  government  in  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  shall  revert  to  its  primitive  Wesleyan 
standard;  in  which  state,  if  we  can  credit  Mr.  Wesley's  declarations, 
it  was  never  intended  that  the  Methodists  should  become  an  ecclesiasti- 
cal establishment,  headed  by  an  episcopal  hierarchy,  consisting  of  an 
indefinite  number  of  incumbents,  all  possessing  the  same  powers,  and 
ruling  the  same  diocese.*  The  model  for  such  a  state  of  things,  is 
not  to  be  met  with  in  the  whole  range  of  church  history,  except  when 
four  individuals  at  the  same  time,  claimed  by  divine  right,  the  chair 
of  popedom  in  the  Roman  see.  If  the  reader  is  startled  at  this,  let 
him  recollect  that  things  that  are  alike  in  their  nature  and  progress 
will  be  compared  by  the  human  mind  and  classed  accordingly.  A 
fifth  remark,  was  on  the  right  which  every  reformer  has  to  remain 
in  the  church.  Why  leave  it?  They  believe  and  speak  the  doc- 
trines of  the  bible,  as  taught  by  Mr.  Wesley  and  his  venerable  as- 
sociates. They  do  not  object  to  the  moral  discipline  of  the  church. 
They  are  pleased  with  and  determined  to  support  the  Wesleyan 
plan  of  itinerancy.  They  are  attached  to  all  the  peculiarities  of 
original  Methodism,  as  taught  by  the  Wesleys,  such  as  class  and 
band  meetings,  love-feasts,  and  free-seated  churches.  A  charge 
I  am  aware,  has  been  published  by  our  patent  rulers,  from  Maine 
to  Georgia,  and  from  the  Gulph  of  St.  Lawrence  to  the  mouth  of 
the  Mississippi,  that  reformers  intend  the  destruction  of  all  these, 
but  we  ask  for  the  proof.  Have  reformers  ever  said  it?  Have 
they  written  it?  Is  it  to  be  inferred  from  their  known  character 
and  conduct?  Have  they  not  uniformly  disavowed  it?  It  is  in  this 
way,  I  regret  to  say,  the  motives  of  reformers  have  been  gravely 
libelled,  in  order  to  maim  and  cripple  their  efforts  in  an  attempt  to 
improve  the  church,  and  promote  its  best  interests;  but  I  sincerely 
hope  none  of  the  friends  of  reform  will  be  provoked  to  leave  the 
church.  If  the  work  of  extermination  be  commenced,  they  will 
find  enough  to  do.  Every  such  outrage  will  be  avenged  by  an  at- 
titude of  resistance  and  defence  on  the  part  of  scores,  who  but  for 
such  measures  would  have  gone  to  their  graves  without  marshalling 
themselves  among  those  with  whom  on  this  subject  they  had  long 
thought  and  felt.  I  repeat,  therefore,  a  former  suggestion,  that 
separation  from  the  church  is  to  be  deprecated,  until  heaven  by 
' 'obvious  indication"  shall  point  out  the  time.  We  cannot  expect 
to  succeed  immediately  in  the  great  objects  we  have  in  view.  I  have 
no  hope  that  the  next  general  conference  will  do  any  thing  for  us.  We 
have  too  many  men  in  power,  bishops  and  would-be-bishops,  that  are 
hovering  over  the  nucleus  of  eclesiastical  aggrandizement;  and  alrea- 
dy laying  their  plans  to  prevent  the  election  of  reformers  to  the  gen- 
eral conference,  to  indulge  the  hope,  even  for  a  moment,  that  we  shall  be 
able  to  accomplish  much  in  that  short  time.  But  the  fact,  that  they 
are  thus  industrious  to  defeat  the  objects  of  reform,  is  the  proof  of  our 

*Mr.  Wesley's  letter  to  Mr.  Asbury  as  published  in  bis  life  by  Mr.  Moore, 
puts  this  question  for  ever  at  rest.  "How  can  you— how  dare  you  suffer 
yourself  to  be  called  a  bishop?  I  shudder,  1  startle  at  the  very  thought,  &c ! 
Sec!"    Moore's  Life  of  Wesley,  vol.  2,  page  285. 


165 


success.    Let  them  manceuvre,  let  them  caucus,  let  them  buy  men  by 
(he  "sale  of indigencies ,"  all  will  ultimately  operate  in  our  favour, 
and  only  multiply  our  friends.*    Witness  the  re-action  of  their  con- 
duct at  the  Baltimore  conference  in  1824.    Witness  the  unintend- 
ed effect  of  bishop  Hedding's  famous  address  at  the  Pittsburg  con- 
ference in  August  last.    Also  the  effect  that  has  followed  the 
defection  of  three  or  four  half-hearted  reformers  in  different  sec- 
tions of  our  country;  men  who  publickly  and  privately  committed 
themselves  to  the  interests  of  reform,  and  then  for  the  sake  of  a 
place,  as  it  would  seem,  cowered  down  most  civilly  at  the  feet  of 
episcopal  patronage.    That  this  was  their  motive,  I  infer  from  the 
fact,  that  reformers  only  ask  now,  what  they  then  prayed  for,  a  re- 
presentative government.    Reform  is  now,  what  it  was  then.  If 
their  change  has  been  the  result  of  honest  conviction,  why  not  let 
us  know  the  powerful  reasons  which  produced  that  conviction? 
If  we  are  in  an  error,  and  they  have  the  proof  of  our  folly,  why  not 
let  it  be  known?  Why  not  declare  this  part  of  God's  counsel  that 
has  been  so  useful  to  their  own  souls?    The  result  has  been,  that 
their  former  friends  on  both  sides  of  this  question  think,  that  these 
men  will,  at  least,  bear  watching. 

Another  method  by  which  our  views  are  furthered,  is,  the  abuse 
of  "Mutual  Rights,"  by  old  side  brethren  indiscriminately.  They 
denounce  this  publication  as  utterly  treasonous: — Immediately  the 
people  start  up,  and  wish  to  see  the  odious  thing.t — They  seek  it, 
read,  and  become  reformers.  It  is  really  surprising  that  so  many 
hard  names,  so  many  ill-natured  epithets,  should  be  given  to  a  lit- 
tle monthly  paper,  gotten  up  as  its  title  imports,  to  evince  by  ar- 
gument, that  the  rights  of  legislation  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  belong  to  the  many,  and  not  the  privileged  few.  One  says 
it  is  "inflammatory;"  another,  it  is  "too  sour;"  a  third,  it  is  a 
"wicked  bitter  thing;"  a  fourth,  it  is  edited  and  supported  by  a 
group  of  "backsliders;"  a  fifth,  that  the  writers  withhold  their 
names,  and  that  nobody  will  notice  it,  not  even  to  review  it.  These, 
Messrs.  Editors,  are  grave  episcopal  objections,  and  have  all  been 
urged  by  our  pious  rulers.  Now  I  would  ask  all  who  may  happen 
to  be  my  readers,  whether  there  is  any  thing  in  "Mutual  Rights," 
from  its  first  to  its  last  number,  more  inflammatory,  sour,  bitter, 
wicked; — that  furnishes  more  stubborn  signs  of  backsliding; — that 
has  greater  reason  to  be  anonymous;  that  ought  to  excite  less  ad- 
miration, or  that  should  sooner  shrink  from  a  review  than  this  lan- 
guage of  our  overseers.  Is  the  work  good  for  nothing  because  no 
one  has  replied  to  it?  What  then  will  become  of  scores  of  publi- 
cations that  issue  from  our  book  room?    Who  reviews  the  Meth- 

*The  appeal  which  the  writer  makes  to  the  facts  which  immediately  follow, 
is  sufficient  explanation  of  the  extent  of  his  meaning-  and  amply  justifies  his 
statements. 

f  We  know  there  are  few  exceptions  to  this  statement.  Some  read  the 
work  to  find  additional  ways  and  means  to  sustain  their  power.  And  there 
are  others,  the  slavish  adherents  to  the  powers  that  be,  who  read  to  find  fault, 
that  they  may  better  please  their  masters. 

22 


166 


odist  Magazine?  Bangs  on  Episcopacy,  McKendree's  Address, 
the  famous  circular  of  the  Bishops  in  1824,  and  so  of  other  publi- 
cations stamped  with  the  magic  authority  of  the  Methodist  book 
room.  All  these  have  received  as  little  notice  in  the  light  of 
review,  as  Mutual  Rights,  and  less,  except  from  reformers  them- 
selves. But  the  work  is  anonymous,  and  therefore  unworthy  of 
confidence.  And  does  the  intrinsic  value  of  a  work,  professing 
to  state  facts,  and  discuss  principles  which  every  one  has  the  means 
of  investigating,  depend  on  the  authority  or  credit  of  a  name?  If 
so,  what  will  become  of  some  of  the  most  valuable  productions  of 
the  literary  world,  even  a  portion  of  the  Holy  Scriptures?  the  books 
of  Judges,  Ruth,  Kings,  Chronicles,  Job,  many  of  the  Psalms,  and 
the  Epistles  to  the  Hebrews?  These  were  all  anonymous,  and 
the  writers  only  ascertained  from  the  internal  evidence  of  their 
productions,  and  some  of  them  remain  unknown  to  the  present 
day.  Were  the  papers  of  Hamilton,  Jay,  and  Madison,  now 
forming  the  political  text  book  of  this  country,  unworthy  of  confi- 
dence because  they  all  withheld  their  names  at  the  time  of  publi- 
cation? Have  the  letters  of  Junius  been  of  no  service  to  the  world, 
the  author  of  which  is  still  unknown?  Should  Belshazzar  have 
been  unmindful  of  the  hand-writing  on  the  wall,  because  he  did 
not  know  the  hand  that  traced  it?  Ought  the  blind  man  in  the 
gospel,  to  have  listened  to  the  advice  of  the  Pharisees,  because 
the  character  and  claims  of  his  benefactor  were  only  accredited  by 
the  convictions  of  his  own  understanding?  But  Messrs.  Editors, 
I  will  not  proceed.  Every  reader  will  perceive,  that  these  are  the 
arguments  of  children,  although  urged  by  men  grown.  The  fact 
is,  these  men  perceive  that  their  idol  is  in  danger;  if  light  be  diffus- 
ed on  this  subject,  principle  will  become  triumphant.  A  church 
ruled  and  governed  by  men  and  laws,  whose  official  creation  does 
not  emanate  from  the  intelligence  and  will  of  the  people,  was  the 
capital  blunder  of  the  primitive  church,  and  gave  birth  to  popery 
with  all  its  train  of  debasing  and  damning  evils.  Are  we  better 
than  the  primitive  church?  if  not,  the  warning  voice  of  history  tells 
us  we  are  in  danger.  But  say  the  advocates  of  the  present  mono- 
poly of  power  in  the  church,  the  people  do  not  ask  for  their  rights; 
for  even  a  bishop  has  admitted  in  my  hearing,  that  if  they  did,  they 
ought  to  have  them.  This  is  well  enough,  it  is  conceding,  at  least, 
that  all  is  not  right;  and,  that  when  the  people  have  sense  enough 
to  find  it  out,  and  independence  enough  to  induce  complaint,  then 
they  must  be  attended  to,  on  this  subject.  It  would  seem  then, 
that  we  are  not  to  "render  to  all  their  dues,"  unless  we  are  asked 
to  do  so.  We  are  not  to  do  justice  unless  the  injured  implore 
mercy.  *  *  *  *  Messrs.  Editors,  what  we  ask  is,  that  Methodism 
may  be  in  these  United  States  what  it  was  under  the  eye  and  man- 
agement of  Mr.  Wesley,  with  this  difference,  that  the  government 
of  the  church  shall  correspond  with  the  genius  and  policy  of  the 
political  institutions  of  this  country.  This  is  plainly  suggested,  as 
1  conceive,  in  Mr.  Wesley's  letter  to  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury, 
in  relation  to  the  civil  rights  of  American  Methodists.  But  Mr. 
Wesley  seems  not  to  have  contemplated  an  episcopacy  in  any  shape.  It 


% 


167 


is,  to  be  sure,  asserted  in  the  preface  to  our  book  of  discipline;  but  the 
oldest  preachers  in  the  United  States,  with  whom  I  have  conversed  and 
corresponded  on  the  subject,  never  saw  the  warrant.    It  has  been  called 
for  by  friends  and  foes  for  thirty  years,  but  is  not  yet  forthcoming. 
If  such  warrant  exists,  why  is  it  that  we  can  learn  nothing  about  it? 
I  have  a  letter  in  my  possession,  saying  that  a  venerable  old 
preacher  in  the  neighborhood  of  Baltimore,  for  whom  I  have  the 
highest  regard,  is  in  possession  of  this  document, — that  is,  written 
instructions  from  Mr.  Wesley  recommending  a  Methodist  episco- 
pacy in  the  United  States.    Now  if  this  highly  esteemed  contem- 
porary of  Mr.  Wesley,  will  give  this  document  to  the  world,  he  will 
confer  a  singular  favour  on  thousands  in  the  Methodist  church.* 
But  until  such  a  document  or  warrant  from  Mr.  Wesley,  be  produced, 
I  as  an  individual,  must  of  necessity  continue  to  doubt  the  histori- 
cal probity  of  the  preface  to  our  book  of  discipline,  in  relation  to 
this  particular.    I  am  the  more  confident  that  no  such  document 
exists,  because  Mr.  Wesley  has  expressly,  in  a  letter  to  bishop 
Asbury,  now  before  the  public,  ridiculed  his  pretensions  as  a  bish- 
op, in  a  way  that  plainly  says,  Mr.  Wesley  never  intended  Mr.  As- 
bury to  be  one  of  the  type  he  was.    But  as  this  subject  is  soon  to 
be  discussed  by  an  able  hand,  I  forbear  saying  more  than  is  neces- 
sary to  my  present  purpose.    Again,  Mr.  Wesley  definitely  disa- 
vows his  belief  in  the  validity  of  a  third  ordination  differing  from 
that  of  presbyter.    Finally,  as  Mr.  Wesley  was  only  a  presbyter 
himself,  he  could  not,  if  disposed,  have  conferred  a  third  and  higher 
ordination  on  Dr.  Coke,  and  directed  him  to  confer  the  same  ordi- 
nation on  Mr.  Asbury;  and  if  he  even  had  done  so,  it  is  no  reason 
why  we  should  perpetuate  the  error:  Mr.  Wesleys'  motto  was, 
"follow  me  when  I  follow  Christ." 

The  object  of  reformers,  therefore,  is,  that  Methodism  in  this  coun- 
try may  be  what  it  was  under  the  personal  inspection  of  Mr.  Wesley, 
subject  to  such  revision  and  changes  in  its  external  discipline,  as 
shall  best  accord  with  the  rapid  increase  of  knowledge  and  the  im- 
proving spirit  of  the  times.  As  an  individual  reformer,  I  am  con- 
vinced that  I  contend  for  nothing  that  Mr.  Wesley  would  object  to, 
under  similar  circumstances;  and  this  I  propose  to  shew  clearly  and 
unequivocally  from  Mr.  Wesley's  writings,  in  a  future  communica- 
tion. When,  therefore,,  our  bishops,  presiding  elders,  preachers 
and  people,  of  the  old  school,  sound  the  note  of  alarm,  that  Wes- 
leyan  Methodism  is  in  danger,  they  either  no  not  know  what  Wes- 
leyan  Methodism  is,  or  they  subject  themselves  to  the  charge  of 
disingenousness.  What  had  Wesleyan  Methodism  to  do  with  our 
self-created  and  self-styled  episcopacy?  For  I  repeat  it,  Dr.  Coke 
was  only  set  apart  as  a  supvrintendent  of  the  American  Methodists, 
and  not  ordained  to  a  third  office  as  a  prelatical  bishop.  The  ceremo- 
ny of  separation  was  only  intended  to  confer  Mr.  Wesley's  authority 
to  oversee  the  American  Methodists  upon  another,  as  Mr.  Wesley  could 
not  attend  to  them  in  person.     What  did  original  Methodism  know  of 

*  We  are  assured,  that  the  preacher  alluded  to  has  no  such  document  in  his 
possession. —  Eds. 


168 


our  order  of  presiding  elder  si  One  man  having  power  to  appoint 
seventy,  to  overrule  and  remove  at  pleasure  fourteen  hundred.  Where 
in  the  annals  of  original  Methodism  did  the  framers  of  our  dis- 
cipline meet  with  the  ceremony  of  ordination  for  a  bishop?  What 
hand  had  Mr.  Wesley  in  the  selection?  If  original  Methodism 
was  the  object  of  the  establishment  in  this  country,  why  was  Mr. 
Wesley  expelled  from  his  own  family,  by  the  official  decision  of 
his  own  children,  in  striking  off  his  name  from  the  American  min- 
utes? And  why  did  Dr.  Coke  declare,  when  preaching  the  funeral 
sermon  of  Mr.  Wesley,  that  he  deemed  it  the  greatest  sin  of  his 
ministerial  life,  that  he  did  not  raise  his  voice  against  this  act  of 
treacherous  cruelty,  from  one  side  of  the  continent  to  the  other? 
The  truth  is,  our  brethren  have  widely  departed  from  primitive 
Methodism,  and  the  principal  object  of  reformers  is  to  bring  them 
back. 

Reformers  are  charged  with  "disaffection. "  But  if  their  object 
is  simply  to  deprive  Methodism  of  its  adventitious  incumbrances, 
and  adapt  it,  in  its  external  organization,  to  the  primitive  mode  of 
operation  in  the  New  Testament,  surely  the  charge  of  disaffection 
lies  at  the  door  of  anti-reformers  who  first  corrupted  the  simple 
plans  of  Methodism,  and  now  wish  to  give  immortality  to  their 
folly  in  refusing  to  reform. 

We  are  told,  reproachfully,  that  reformers  are  "few."  We  need 
only  ask,  were  not  the  knees  in  Israel  unbent  to  Baal  few,  in  Elijah's 
time?  Were  not  the  apostles  few,  when  they  went  out  to  evangel- 
ize the  world?  How  many  were  with  the  Saxon  reformer  when  he 
commenced  his  career  of  glory?  How  many  with  Wesley  when 
he  began  a  reform  in  the  church  of  England?  If  the  majority  are 
most  likely  to  be  right,  in  any  organized  body  of  people,  why  with- 
hold the  privilege  of  election  and  representation  from  three  hun- 
dred thousand  ministers  and  members  of  the  church,  and  place  it 
in  the  hands  of  a  "few!" 

But  we  are  told  the  "missionary  character"  of  our  ministry  will 
be  destroyed  if  we  alter  the  present  system.  But  as  in  other  cases 
of  objection,  the  proof  is  omitted.  Did  not  missionary  enterprize 
succeed  in  the  first  ages  of  the  church,  when  all  the  bishops  of  the 
church  together,  did  not  possess  as  much  power  as  one  of  our's 
does  now?  We  might  quote  here,  the  Waldenses  and  Albigenses, 
the  Moravians  and  others,  who  have  been  as  truly  primitive  and 
missionary  in  their  character  as  ever  we  were,  and  yet  without  an 
episcopacy  resembling  ours.  So  far  from  this  being  true,  the  fact, 
I  apprehend,  is  beyond  cavil,  that  multitudes  of  the  most  able  and 
worthy  ministers  we  have  ever  had  among  us,  have  been  driven 
from  missionary  toil  altogether,  because  of  the  arbitrary  and  capri- 
cious notions  of  the  episcopacy,  in  sending  them  whither  they 
could  not  go,  without  a  violation  of  other  and  paramount  duties. 
But  it  would  seem  anti-reformers  "know  nothing"  of  these  things. 

The  improvements  proposed  in  our  present  form  of  government,  are 
openly  denounced  as  "innovations."  This  is  somewhat  singular  when 
every  man  of  information  knows,  that  our  whole  system  of  episcopacy 
in  the  United  States,  is  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  an  "innovation" 


169 


upon  the  genius  and  plans  of  Wcslcyan  Methodism,  and  one  expressly 
disapproved  and  disavowed  by  Mr.  Wesley. 

We  are  told  by  some,  with  an  air  of  great  confidence,  that  we 
enjoy  all  the  "rights  and  privileges  stipulated  for  or  acquired,"  at 
the  time  of  joining  the  church.  This  is  not  true  of  any  ministeror 
member  of  the  church  on  the  continent,  who  became  members 
prior  to  1S08.  Our  restrictive  bill  of  rights  of  this  date,  deprives 
ministers  and  members  of  rights  with  which  they  were  introduced 
into  the  world,  and  born  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  our  book  of 
discipline  has  undergone  alterations  and  received  additions  quad- 
rennially ever  since.  When  a  few  travelling  preachers,  who  meet 
in  general  conference,  each  representing  his  "sacred  seven,"  and 
to  the  whole  body  of  the  church  beside,  utterly  irresponsible,  see 
proper,  then  our  code  of  laws  is  incomplete;  but  when  multitudes, 
here  and  there,  throughout  a  community  of  nearly  four  hundred 
thousand  human  beings,  complain  of  the  unnatural  and  unscriptural 
distribution  of  power  among  us,  then  we  are  hushed  by  an  argu- 
ment, that  it  seems  must  be  received  without  defence  or  proof, 
whether  it  is  because  it  is  too  forcible  to  require  proof,  or  too  feeble 
to  admit  of  it,  I  cannot  pretend  to  say,  but  the  argument  is,  re- 
formers are  "few — disaffected,  and  innovaters;"  and  what  is  worse 
than  all,  will  say  what  they  think;  the  prudence  of  the  determina- 
tion not  to  defend  this  position,  must  be  obvious  to  every  one. 

It  is  said  by  our  friends  of  the  old  side  (not  Mr.  Wesley's 
side,  however,)  that  our  plans  and  efforts  to  obtain  a  representative 
government,  and  have  the  thousands  of  our  Israel  duly  represent- 
ed in  the  legislative  councils  of  the  church,  are  "visionary  theories 
and  uncertain  speculations."  This  dexterous  stroke,  obviously  an 
"appeal  to  the  political  feelings"  of  those  concerned,  betrays  a 
fearful  want  of  attention  both  to  civil  and  church  history,  and  is 
broadly  contradicted  by  the  records  of  ages  and  nations.  The  al- 
leged incompatibility  of  representative  government  with  successful 
missionary  enterprize,  is  equally  contradicted  by  the  history  of 
man  and  the  bible,  and  a  discerning  public  cannot  fail  to  mark  this 
item  of  Methodist  policy,  as  worthy  of  being  called  up  again. 

One  remark  more,  Messrs  Editors.  It  is  said  reformers  "inveigh 
against  the  discipline  of  the  church."  This  charge  we  deny.  We 
think  the  discipline  of  the  church  defective,  and  wish  it  improved; 
but  where  is  the  reformer  that  refuses  peaceably  to  submit  to  the 
order  of  the  church?  While  we  remain  in  the  church,  and  its  pre- 
sent discipline  is  retained,  it  is  our  intention  to  submit  to  it.  May 
not  a  man  find  fault  with  the  government  under  which  he  lives, 
without  treasonously  inveighing  against  it?  But  if  the  discipline 
be  really,  as  we  conceive,  in  many  respects  inconsistent  with  the 
scriptures,  and  unprimitive  in  its  character,  where  is  the  sin  of  op- 
posing it,  provided  it  be  done  in  a  proper  manner?  The  framers  of 
our  discipline  doubtless  saw,  that  this  clause  on  the  subject  of  "in- 
veighing" would  be  of  great  importance,  in  support  of  the  un- 
natural and  almost  non-descript  form  of  government,  they  were 
about  to  adopt.  We  beg  leave  to  ask,  however,  whether  those 
preachers  "inveigh  against  our  doctrines,  who  do  not  believe  some 


170 


of  them,  and  publicly  preach  and  openly  write  against  them.  That 
the  doctrine  of  Christ's  eternal  Sonship,  is  a  doctrine  of  Metho- 
dism, the  merest  novice  knows  full  well,  and  yet  this  is  denied  and 
denounced,  by  scores  of  our  preachers  every  Sabbath.  The  abso- 
lute omniscience  of  God,  is  another  doctrine  of  Methodism,  as  it 
is  of  the  bible;  and  yet,  I  have  frequently  listened  to  Methodist 
preachers,  trying  to  demonstrate  that  the  prescience  of  Deity  is 
only  contingent, — that  he  could,  but  does  not  know  every  thing. 
In  a  sermon,  recently  published  under  the  sanction  of  the  Metho- 
dist Book-Room,  it  is  expressly  asserted,  that  Jesus  Christ  pos- 
sessed ''two  distinct  persons,"  contrary  to  the  express  language  of 
one  of  our  articles.  If  this  is  not  inveighing  against  the  "doc- 
trines" of  the  church,  surely  we  have  not  inveighed  against  its  dis- 
cipline. Our  friends,  therefore,  need  not  talk  so  piteously  about 
the  "impunity"  extended  to  reformers,  for  some  of  them  stand  in 
more  need  of  this  grace  than  we  do.  I  suppose  it  was  by  a  con- 
structive torture  of  this  part  of  the  discipline,  that  the  wary  trustees 
of  the  Methodist  churches  in  Baltimore,  recently  refused  their 
houses  to  a  man,  whose  genius  and  piety  for  thirty  years  past,  as  a 
Methodist  preacher,  have  thrown  nine-tenths  of  the  pulpits  of  this 
country  into  shade.  These  men  may  account  to  their  own  con- 
sciences for  their  conduct;  but,  the  question  arises,  will  their  con- 
temporaries and  posterity  receive  their  plea? 

I  close  by  simply  remarking,  that  it  is  my  sincere  wish  that  this 
controversy  may  be  conducted  with  the  temper  and  dignity  becom- 
ing the  importance  of  the  subject.  The  discussion,  if  properly 
managed,  can  do  no  ultimate  harm  to  the  church;  truth  and  facts 
will  be  elicited  and  brought  to  light;  our  people  will  be  able  to 
prove  all  things  on  this  subject,  and  holdfast,  in  their  form  of  gov- 
ernment, that  which  is  good.  That  much  feeling  will  be  excited, 
is  to  be  expected:  this  will  occur  on  both  sides,  and,  if  duly  man- 
aged, is  not  to  be  deprecated. 

One  thing  is  certain,  reformers,  so  far  as  I  know  them,  have  not 
manifested  the  uncharitable  disposition  that  has  appeared  in  most 
of  our  active  anti -reformers.  The  former  admit  the  piety  and  in- 
tegrity of  the  great  mass  of  the  travelling  preachers;  they  only 
doubt  their  policy,  or  rather  are  convinced  it  is  both  unsafe  and  un- 
scriptural:  while  on  the  other  hand,  it  is,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  the  staid 
effort  of  those  who  oppose  us,  to  represent  us  as  fallen  from  virtue 
and  destitute  of  piety.  This  conduct  may  have  the  credit  of  zeal — 
it  may  be  glossed  by  the  casuist,  so  as  to  appear  plausible  to  many, 
but  still  it  is  invidious  in  the  judgment  of  the  judicious,  and  im- 
moral in  the  sight  of  God.  Let  reformers,  while  engaged  in  the 
laudable  work  of  refbrmering  the  abuse  of  church  power,  not  forget 
or  neglect  the  moral  discipline  and  practical  purity  of  Wesleyan 
Methodism.  Let  them  remain  in  the  church  till  they  be  cast  out 
or  compelled  to  leave  it;  an  event,  at  present,  not  to  be  strongly 
looked  for;  but,  should  it  occur,  we  shall  then,  in  the  order  of  provi- 
dence, be  under  the  necessity  of  resting  our  cause  and  appeal,  with 
men  and  churches,  better  informed,  and  God,  the  judge  of  all. 
December  SQth,  1826.  Dissenter. 


171 


The  remarks  which  we  have  in  view  respecting  this  paper  are 
reserved,  with  intention  to  present  them  together  with  something 
additional,  at  the  conclusion  of  the  paper  by  Neale.  The  propriety 
of  this,  will  be  seen  when  the  intended  remarks  shall  be  submitted. 


CHAPTER  XX. 

Presbyter  to  the  Editors  of  the  Mutual  Rights. 

This  paper  was  published  in  the  April  number  of  the  Mutual 
Rights  for  1827: — the  month  in  which  the  Baltimore  Annual  Con- 
ference suspended  Rev'd.  Dennis  B.  Dorsey.  Considering  the 
previous  expulsions  of  reformers  and  the  accompanying  circum- 
stances indicative  of  the  arrogant  purposes  of  the  power  party, 
men  of  good  sense  will  say,  that  we,  as  the  editors  of  the  periodi- 
cal, ought  not  to  have  rejected  any  such  papers  as  those  bearing 
the  signatures  of  Dissenter,  Presbyter  or  Neale. 

Presbyter  to  the  Editors  of  the  Mutual  Rights. 

Messrs.  Editors. 

Permit  an  individual  unknown,  and  unnumbered  in  the  ranks  of 
reform,  to  say  one  word  to  you,  and  through  the  medium  of*your 
increasing  popular  paper,  to  the  world,  on  a  subject  in  which  he 
feels  a  deep  and  an  abiding  interest.    It  affords  me  no  ordinary 
pleasure,  to  witness  from  time  to  time,  in  various  ways,  and  through 
different  channels,  the  enlarged  borders,  and  abounding  prosperity 
of  the  American  Methodists,  and  I  should  deeply  regret  the  occur- 
rence of  any  event  that  might  tend  in  any  way,  or  to  any  extent, 
to  prevent  the  unrivalled  success,  so  invariably  attendant  upon  the 
evangelizing  labours  of  our  ministry.    It  has  been  suggested  to 
me,  by  many  in  different  departments  of  the  church,  that  the  in- 
fluence of  the  present  controversy,  on  the  subject  of  reform,  is  di- 
rectly and  extensively  hurtful  to  the  interests  of  practical  piety 
among  us,  and  likely  to  render  us  less  zealous  and  primitive  than 
we  have  heretofore  been.    This  opinion,  I  conceive,  is  plainly  an 
error;  so  far  as  I  can  judge,  it  has  no  foundation,  either  in  fact  or 
moral  probability;  as  it  respects  the  best  means,  and  the  grand  ele- 
ments of  ministerial  success,  in  labouring  for  the  world's  conver- 
sion, we  are  all  agreed,  and  all  united.    The  only  question  of  dif- 
ference among  us,  is  purely  a  question  of  government,  and  hitherto 
has  been,  with  few  exceptions,  and  I  think  will  continue  to  be  dis- 
cussed and  canvassed  apart,  from  the  more  immediate  concerns  of 
the  pulpit,  the  altar,  and  the  closet.    That  this  has  been  the  aim 
and  course  of  the  principle  reformers,  admits  of  no  doubt,  unless 
we  refuse  to  believe  men  who  are  as  fully  and  fairly  entitled  to 
credit  as  any  men  living;  that  there  are  men  among  us,  professedly 
in  favour  of  reform,  who  are  as  rich  in  character,  talent  and  useful- 
ness, as  any  among  the  thousands  our  church  embodies,  not  even 


172 


excepting  the  "episcopal  board,"  is  a  truth,  that  must  be  felt  by  all, 
unless  grossly  ignorant.  Now  to  withhold  confidence  from  such 
men  dictating  their  sentiments  without  disguise  or  equivocation,  is 
to  insult  the  human  understanding,  and  outrage  christian  charity; 
for  it  is  obviously  a  departure  from  all  those  maxims,  that  govern 
men  in  their  intercourse  with  one  another.  Our  controversy  there- 
fore, is  one  respecting  discipline,  and  I  sincerely  trust,  if  our  breth- 
ren of  the  old  school,  are  determined  to  remain  unyielding,  that  they 
will  not  attempt  to  impress  the  uniformed  with  an  idea  that  the 
friends  of  reform  of  the  discipline  of  the  church,  are  the  enemies  of 
real  and  vital  piety;  that  this  has  been  extensively  attempted,  by 
our  non-reforming  brethren,  is,  I  think,  in  proof  before  the  public; 
and  this  single  circumstance,  in  my  opinion,  (although  others  of  a 
bolder  character  are  not  wanting)  would  justify  "Dissenter"  in  all 
he  has  said  in  his  "Miscellaneous  Remarks"  upon  this  subject.  It 
seems  to  have  been  agreed  upon  as  an  "argumentum  ad  hominem" 
and  this  "Dissenter"  calls  a  "system,"  and  that  it  is  "oppressive" 
will  be  questioned,  I  apprehend,  by  no  impartial  examiner.  What 
reformers  ask  for  is,  that  we  may  have  (if  any)  a  presbyterial  epis- 
copacy, and  a  representative  government,  while  our  brethren  of 
the  majority  publish  to  the  world,  in  no  ambiguous  language,  that 
such  a  form  of  government  would  prove  "ruinous"  to  the  best  in- 
terests of  the  church,  and  that  prelatical  diocesan  episcopacy  and 
non-representative  government  are  necessary  to  the  being  and  per 
petuity  of  Wesleyan  Methodism;  and  this  is  the  actual  state  of 
things  among  us,  although  Mr.  Wesley  declares  his  belief  in  pres- 
byterial episcopacy  and  no  other.*  If  the  reader  be  startled,  I 
refer  him  to  our  old  minutes,  where  Dr.  Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury 
styled  themselves  bishops,  "by  order  and  succession!"  It  appears, 
however,  they  reformed  in  a  short  time  and  dropped  this  pitiful  fig- 
ment, as  carrying  its  own  refutation  with  it.  In  1789,  an  attempt 
was  made  to  conciliate  Mr.  Wesley,  by  calling  him  "bishop  of  the 
Methodist  church  in  Europe  in  the  American  minutes;  and  what 
is  indeed  remarkable,  this  was  done  after  Mr.  Wesley  had  written 
to  Mr.  Asbury,  definitely  declaring  he  would  never  be  called 
"bishop  with  his  consent."  Now  the  object  of  these  remarks, 
Messrs.  Editors,  is  to  show  that  our  episcopacy  has  nothing  to  do 

*  After  a  careful  attention  to  this  subject,  our  deliberate  judgment  is,  that 
a  presbyterial  superintendent,  was  the  official  character,  with  which  Mr. 
Wesley,  assisted  by  two  other  presbyters  of  the  church  of  England,  consid- 
ered himself  to  have  invested  Dr.  Coke.  That  he  in  like  manner,  ordained 
Richard  Whatcoat  and  Thomas  Vasey,  and  sent  them  with  Dr.  Coke  to 
America,  that  they  might  ordain  Mr.  Asbury  a  joint  presbyterial  superin- 
tendent, to  co-operate  with  Dr.  Coke  in  supervising1  the  societies.  And  that 
in  this  manner,  he  expected  to  continue  his  authority  and  exercise  it,  by 
making"  any  other  similar  appointments,  or  by  recalling  any  one  or  all  of 
those  who  might  be  appointed  from  time  to  time,  to  act  as  superintendents. 
In  course  that  he  did  not  intend,  that  any  one  of  them,  should  be  an  incum- 
bent for  life.  It  has  been  noticed  in  a  preceding  part  of  this  work,  that  Mr. 
Asbury  got  himself  elected  to  prevent  his  being  subject  to  the  recal  of  Mr. 
Wesley.  And  Mr.  Freeborn  Garretson  in  his  last  letter,  certainly  gives  con- 
firmation to  this  view  of  the  subject. 


173 


with  original  Wesley  an  Methodism,  and  is  disowned  by  it.  It  can- 
not therefore,  be  in  any  way  essential  to  our  prosperity,  for  the  his- 
tory of  the  British  Methoclists,  and  that  of  the  American  Methodists 
for  eighteen  years,  proves  clearly  and  indubitably  that  its  alleged  im- 
portance, in  order  to  the  success  of  Christianity  among  us,  is  a  per- 
fectly gratuitous  assumption,  unsupported  by  reason,  history  or  com- 
mon sense.  On  the  other  hand,  if  our  bishops,  and  their  pertinacious 
supporters  as  high-toned  episcopalians,  ill  as  it  may  look,  (for 
such  they  really  are,)  would  yield  and  distribute  throughout  the  dif- 
ferent departments  of  the  church  that  part  of  their  power,  that  has 
come  into  their  hands  "surreptitiously,"*  it  would  abate  the  honest 
inquietude  of  thousands;  it  would  remove  the  just  apprehensions  of 
the  discerning,  and  bring  worthy  multitudes  into  the  bosom  of  the 
Methodist  church,  whose  names,  as  things  now  are,  will  never  adorn 
our  calendar.  Of  the  truth  of  these  remarks,  I  have  no  doubt,  and 
surely  one  who  has  travelled  as  a  Methodist  itinerant  preacher,  at 
least  fifty  thousand  miles,  may  be  permitted  to  speak  on  a  subject 
that  lies  so  near  his  heart,  and  is  vitally  connected  with  the  individ- 
ual and  social  interests  of  living  and  unborn  millions!  With  these 
remarks,  Messrs.  Editors,  I  close;  but  as  I  have  passed  the  Rubicon, 
you  may  hear  from  me  again  about  the  ides  of  March. 

February  2&th,  1827.  Presbyter. 

P.  S.  In  the  number  of  Mutual  Rights  for  the  month  current,  I 
observe  some  remarks  fixing  a  difference  between  the  terms  "dis- 
cipline" and  "government,"  as  used  by  some  writers  on  the  subject 
of  reform.  I  had  observed  this  distinction  in  the  singular  publica- 
tion of  twenty-four  "trustees,  local  preachers,  stewards,  and  lead- 
ers," of  your  city,  in  December  last;  but,  like  many  other  thing3  in 

*In  addition  to  what  19  adduced  in  justification  of  Mr.  Walker,  Luther, 
&c.  in  proof  of  "assumption,"  and  in  explanation  of  the  manner  how,  the 
influence  of  the  British  preachers  and  Mr.  Asbury,  prepared  and  en- 
listed the  American  preachers,  to  go  with  them  and  lay  hold  on  all  power, 
legislative,  executive  and  judicial.  We  here  insert  an  extract  from  Mr.  Free- 
born Garretson's  letter,  alluded  to  above,  and  as  puolished  in  the  Wesleyan 
Methodist  Magazine,  for  the  year  1828. 

In  the  year  1787,  May  10th,  perhaps,  he  says,  "Dr.  Coke  had  just  ar- 
rived from  England,  with  directions  of  considerable  importance  from  Mr. 
Wesley,  which  caused  much  agitation  in  our  conference.  The  business  was 
Mr.  Wesley  had  appointed  Messrs.  Whatcoat  and  Garretson,  to  be  conse- 
crated for  the  superintendency.  The  former  (Mr.  Whatcoat)  as  joint  superin- 
tendent with  Mr.  Asbury  in  the  United  States; — the  latter  (Mr.  Garretson) 
to  have  charge  of  the  societies  of  the  British  dominions  in  America. "  It  is 
known,  that  the  conference  rejected  Mr.  Whatcoat.  After  this  occurrence 
took  place,  Mr.  Garretson,  speaking  of  himself  and  Dr.  Coke,  says,  "We 
were  grieved  for  the  rejection  of  Wesley's  appointments,  and  for  the  loss  of 
his  name  from  our  yearly  minutes.  After  Dr.  Coke  returned  to  England,  I 
received  a  letter  from  Mr.  Wesley,  in  which  he  spoke  his  mind  freely.  He 
was  dissatisfied  with  three  things: — the  rejection  of  his  appointments; — the 
substitution  of  the  word  bishop  for  superintendent — and  the  discontinuance 
of  his  name  from  our  minutes." 


23 


174 


that  production,  I  thought  it  more  the  effect  of  negligence  and 
inattention,  than  the  result  of  discriminating  reflection.  I  find, 
however,  that  the  Rev.  A.  Shinn,  in  his  masterly  and  triumphant 
appeal  to  the  public,  in  reply  to  this  imposing,  but  every  way  vul- 
nerable document,  has  admitted  and  carried  out  the  distinction. 
Now,  Messrs.  Editors,  however  I  may  admit  the  abstract  propriety 
of  this  distinction,  and  I  really  think  it  ought  to  exist  and  be  uni- 
formly recognized,  as  one  of  obvious  practical  utility;  and  although 
I  am  aware  this  distinction  exists  in  its  full  force  in  the  Methodist 
Societies  in  Great  Britain,  yet  I  am  compelled  to  think  the  saga- 
cious masters  of  our  present  form  of  government,  did  not  intend  to 
make  or  allow  the  distinction  under  notice.  I  refer  you  to  our 
Book  of  Discipline,  title  page,  "The  doctrines  and  discipline," — 
by  doctrines  the  authors  of  this  book  undoubtedly  mean  articles  of 
faith,  and,  in  some  editions,  a  few  essays  illustrative  of  them :  by 
discipline,  every  thing  else  in  the  book.  Thus,  you  will  perceive, 
that  the  just  and  important  distinction  noticed  by  your  able  and 
judicious  correspondent,  Mr.  Shinn,  is  not  in  reality  admitted,  in 
the  authorized  nomenclature  of  episcopal  Methodism.  If  any  man 
among  the  thousands  who  belong  to  our  establishment,  should 
venture  to  find  fault,  or  suggest  improvements  in  the  government 
of  the  church,  be  it  done  never  so  temperately  or  calmly,  it  is  not 
material,  he  is  liable  to  arrest;  the  displeasure  of  that  establish- 
ment is  sure  to  reach  him,  and  the  chances  are  ten  to  one  if  its 
foot  of  oppressive  memory  be  not  placed  upon  his  neck.  In  con- 
firmation of  an  opinion  of  so  serious  a  character,  I  offer  the  con- 
duct of  the  late  Virginia  conference,  in  sanctioning  the  expulsion 
of  several  members  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  for  no 
other  reason  than  that  they  were  reformers.  It  may  not  be  amiss 
to  remind  our  readers,  that  three  of  our  bishops  were  present  at 
this  conference,  and  no  doubt,  felt  their  hands  much  strengthened 
by  the  primitive  zeal  of  "Benton  Field,"  and  the  approving  major- 
ity who  gave  the  salutary  vote  !  Mr.  Wesley,  in  his  "Appeal  to 
Men  of  Reason  and  Religion,"  declares  opinions  in  matters  of 
church  government  are  no  part  of  Methodism:  but,  our  more  saga- 
cious bishops,  and  others,  seem  to  think  opinions  vitally  essential, 
at  least  to  episcopal  Methodism.  Mr.  Wesley  was  right,  and  so 
are  our  bishops;  and  the  remark  is  perfectly  consistent,  when  we 
recollect  that  episcopal  Methodism  is  plainly  and  incorrigibly 
anti- Wesley  an.  The  preceding  remarks,  will,  perhaps,  satisfy 
many  readers  that  I  am  correct  in  using  the  term  discipline  in  its 
ordinary  acceptation  with  our  men  in  rule :  but,  I  beg  leave  to 
state  distinctly,  that  I  mean  by  it  precisely  what  Mr.  Shinn  means 
by  government,  as  in  strict  propriety  distinguished  from  discipline. 
I  used  the  term  in  accommodation  to  established  usage  in  our 
church.  If  discipline  mean  only  our  "general  rules,"  as  given  us 
by  the  Wesleys,  I  am  satisfied  ours  is  the  best  discipline  of  human 
construction,  on  earth:  but,  if  I  am  to  understand  the  term,  as 
used  by  Coke  and  Asbury,  to  cover  all  the  flimsy  and  fallacious 
pretensions  of  Methodist  Episcopacy,  then,  and  only  in  this  event, 
I  am  opposed  to  some  parts  and  features  of  what  is  called  our 


175 


discipline;  and  I  claim  the  privilege  of  stating  freely  and  fairly,  the 
nature  and  extent  of  my  opposition:  and,  in  doing  this,  I  cannot 
conceive  that  I  inveigh  against  the  discipline  any  more  than  our 
reverend  bishops  themselves,  who  have  consented  to  the  repeal 
of  many  things  contained  in  the  discipline,  at  the  time  this  politic 
precautionary  clause,  on  the  subject  of  inveighing,  was  introduced. 

If  the  time  has  arrived,  when  a  man  cannot  express  his  opinions 
as  to  the  scriptural  character,  and  relative  legitimacy  of  our  mode 
of  church  government,  without  subjecting  himself  to  ecclesiastical 
censure  and  anathema,  as  exemplified  in  the  proceedings  of  the 
late  Virginia  conference,  then  in  this  case,  I  think,  the  sooner 
we  arrive  at  a  crisis,  the  better.    The  world  ought  to  know,  and 
heaven  and  earth  record,  that  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  of 
the  United  States,  is  to  be  governed  by  human  authority,  and 
not  by  moral  evidence,  as  found  in  the  Bible,  and  other  kindred 
sources  of  accredited  information.    The  intelligent  reader  may 
startle  at  the  sentence  he  has  just  read;  but  let  him  recollect,  re- 
marks of  this  kind,  are  not  without  foundation  in  truth,  and  sup- 
port from  facts.    Why  are  our  friends,  of  the  reigning  administra- 
tion, so  vigilant  in  their  endeavours  to  ascertain  who  are  the  real 
authors  of  various  productions  on  the  subject  of  reform?  Obvious- 
ly, that  they  may  reach  them  by  a  process,  other  than  that  of 
argument  and  fair  discussion.    If  the  friends  of  the  present  state 
of  things  in  our  government,  were  disposed  to  confine  themselves 
to  the  merits  of  the  controversy  on  the  subject  of  reform,  it  would 
be  entirely  immaterial  to  them,  who  "Spectator"  and  "Dissenter" 
are;  and  so  of  others:  they  would  reply  to  them,  and  attempt  to 
refute  them,  as  individuals  who  have  a  right,  from  God  and  men, 
to  say  what  they  honestly  think:  we  should  not  see  so  many  en- 
gaged in  a  furious  hunt,  or  epistolary  crusade,  after  writers,  who 
are  too  well  acquainted  with  the  present  temper  of  Methodism, 
to  disclose  their  names;  but  whose  productions,  at  the  same  time, 
must  convince  good  sense,  wherever  it  is  found,  that  they  are 
entitled  to  be  heard,  and  will  be  read  with  interest,  by  all  who  love 
and  appreciate  freedom  of  inquiry:  even  bishops  can  guess  at  au- 
thors, to  whose  arguments  they  do  not  choose  to  reply ;  and  the 
conjecture  is  received  as  oracular  and  published  by  pious  minions 
accordingly.    Allow  me,  Messrs.  Editors,  to  ask,  what  does  all 
this  prove?    To  me,  it  demonstrates  most  irrefutably  that  one  of 
your  correspondents,  the  influence  of  whose  pen  will  be  felt  by 
posterity,  is  correct  in  saying,  we  are  to  be  silenced  by  authorita- 
tive and  not  by  rational  arguments.    As  an  individual,  it  is  very  pos- 
sible, I  may  feel  in  no  very  pleasant  way,  the  force  of  this  reason- 
ing; that  I  shall  never  be  convinced  by  it,  I  am  entirely  certain. 
I  respect  the  sayings  and  the  authority  of  the  Son  of  God  too  much, 
to  call  any  man  "master"  in  things  affecting  my  eternal  interests, 
and  those  of  my  fellow  creatures.    John  Wesley,  the  enlightened 
and  beloved  founder  of  Methodism,  was  only  a  presbyter  in  the 
church  of  England;  Doctor  Coke  was  nothing  more:  from  these 
the  Methodist  ministers  in  America,  have  derived  their  ordination. 
Confident  that  the  latter  could  not  derive  from  the  former,  what 


176 


they  did  not  possess  themselves,  I  renounce,  as  perfectly  gratuitous 
and  trifling,  the  episcopal  pretensions  of  those  among  us,  with 
whom  the  abused  epithet  of  bishop  means  any  thing  more  than  a 
primitive  New  Testament.  Presbyter. 
March  VHh,  1827. 


CHAPTER  XXI. 

Reasons  in  plea  for  reform  in  the  government  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  by  Neale.  This  paper  was  published  in  the  number 
for  July,  1827. 

The  same  departure  from  candor  and  propriety  was  practised  in 
this,  as  in  the  two  preceding  instances;  and,  as  in  those,  so  in  this, 
an  exhibition  of  the  paper  entire  will  justify  its  publication.  The 
part  extracted  will  be  recognized  by  being  printed  in  italics. 

It  should  be  remembered,  that  this  paper  was  published  subse- 
quently to  the  suspension  of  Rev'd  D.  B.  Dorsey. 

Gentlemen, — I  propose  sending  you  a  few  brief  essays  on  the 
subject  of  Episcopal  Methodism,  the  distinctive  character  of  which 
will  be  understood  from  the  caption  above.  I  shall  avoid  all  elab- 
orate discussion,  because  I  know  your  list  of  correspondents  is  ra- 
pidly increasing;  and  I  am  deeply  solicitous  that  my  brethren,  who 
may  think  with  me  on  this  subject,  should  severally  speak  for  them- 
selves. I  wish  to  be  distinctly  understood,  I  have  no  controversy 
with  original  Methodism,  I  have  no  dispute  with  the  doctrines  and 
duties  of  Methodism,  considered  as  a  systematic  exposition,  or 
practical  illustration  of  the  word  of  God;  and  in  the  remarks  1  have 
to  offer,  I  have  no  concern  (unless  it  be  allusively)  with  Methodism 
as  it  exists  in  Europe;  my  only  concern  is  with  episcopacy  as  an 
appendage  of  Methodism  in  the  United  States.  The  distinguish- 
ing system  of  religious  doctrines  and  duties  styled  Methodism  has 
existed  in  Europe  near  a  century,  without  the  unnatural  appen- 
dage of  which  I  am  now  speaking,  and  it  existed  in  this  country 
without  any  such  burdensome  adjunct  for  eighteen  years.  It  is 
plain,  therefore,  that  episcopacy  is  no  part  of  Methodism  in  its  pri- 
mitive character  and  operations;  it  is  not,  in  any  way,  essential 
either  to  its  being  or  success,  as  the  creed  and  manual  of  one 
of  the  reformed  churches,  and  it  remains  to  be  inquired  into, 
whether  it  be  a  good  or  an  evil,  in  its  rather  mysterious  connection 
with  American  Methodism.  Hitherto  it  has  been  the  policy  of 
Methodism,  at  least  in  most  cases,  to  be  bold  and  unshrinking,  she 
has  not  declined  the  light  nor  shrunk  from  inquiry,  but  has  fear- 
lessly challenged  the  most  acute  investigation;  and  if  the  supernu- 
merary badge,  under  which  she  now  appears,  in  the  United  States, 
I  mean  episcopacy,  suggests  the  propriety  of  adopting  any  other 
policy,  it  is  obviously  a  suspicious  circumstance,  and  calls  for  ex- 
amination. 


177 


Impressed  with  the  correctness  and  importance  of  this  view  of 
the  subject,  we  proceed  to  inquire  into  the  origin  and  establishment 
of  episcopacy  among  the  Methodists  in  the  United  States;  on  this 
subject  I  submit  to  the  reader  a  concise  syllabus  of  facts,  the  grea- 
ter part  of  which,  admit  of  positive  proofs,  and  the  truth  of  the  rest 
is  fairly  inferable  from  an  induction  of  authentic  particulars.  1st. 
The  Rev.  John  Wesley,  the  father  and  founder  of  Methodism,  ex- 
pressly avows  his  belief,  founded  especially  upon  the  reasoning  of 
Lord  King,  that  there  are  but  two  orders  of  ministers  by  divine  ap- 
pointment in  the  church  of  Christ; — deacons  and  presbyters,  and 
that  a  third  order  differing  from  and  superior  to  presbyters,  is  an 
unscriptural  and  gratuitous  assumption.  He  also  affirms  in  so 
many  words,  that  a  presbyter  has  the  same  right  to  ordain,  that  a 
bishop  has;  hence  Mr.  Wesley,  in  language  that  nothing  but  igno- 
rance or  want  of  candour  can  misconstrue,  definitely  renounces 
episcopal  ordination,  when  we  understand  by  it  a  third  order  of 
ministers,  in  the  church  of  Christ.  2d.  Assuming  that  Mr.  Wes- 
ley acted  consistently  (and  a  charge  of  inconsistency  here  would 
argue  want  of  principle)  we  are  only  allowed  to  suppose,  that  Mr. 
Wesley's  ordination  of  doctor  Coke,  Mr.  Hanby,  Mr.  Taylor,  Mr. 
Pawson,  also  Messrs.  Mather,  Rankin  and  Moore,  was  simply  an 
appointment  to  labour  and  govern,  in  given  sections  of  the  vast 
field  of  missionary  effort  and  pastoral  care,  to  which  the  personal 
inspection  of  Mr.  Wesley  could  not  extend,  and  not  the  creation  of 
a  third  order,  as  asserted  and  contended  for,  by  the  bishops  and 
their  apologists  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

In  the  ordination  of  these  men,  Mr.  Wesley  conferred  equal 
powers  upon  all,  at  least  we  can  find  nothing  to  the  contrary;  one 
was  as  much  a  bishop  as  another;  and  the  power  conferred  by  Mr. 
Wesley,  as  the  great  father  and  leader  of  all  the  Methodists,  was 
simply  to  create  them  superintendents  under  himself,  with  the  ex- 
press understanding  that  they  were  to  continue  united  to  the  estab- 
lished church,  or  at  least  were  not  to  seek  a  separation  from  it.  If, 
however,  Mr.  Wesley  had  intended  his  ordinations  to  create  a  third 
order  of  ministers  in  the  character  of  bishops,  this  would  have  been 
publicly  to  disown  the  discipline  of  the  church  of  England,  and 
must  have  been  considered  by  all,  as  a  bona  fide  separation  from  it. 
It  is,  therefore,  clear  as  the  light  of  heaven,  that  all  these  were  or- 
dinations of  appointment  and  not  of  office,  they  created  no  new 
relations  or  powers,  but  simply  gave  the  pre-existing  relations  and 
powers  of  these  men  a  new  direction,  in  reference  to  the  specific 
divisions  of  labour  for  which  they  were  set  apart.  3d.  We  have 
positive  proof  from  the  pens  of  the  living  and  the  dead,  that  in  the 
case  of  Dr.  Coke,  Mr.  Wesley  instructed  him  in  the  most  explicit 
and  "solemn  manner,"  not  to  take  upon  him  the  name  of  bishop,  nor 
allow  himself  to  be  so  called;  and  we  have  it  from  the  pen  of  Mr. 
Wesley  himself,  that  three  years  after  this  had  been  done,  by  Dr. 
Coke  and  Mr.  Asbury,  in  the  United  States,  he  conjured  themin  the 
name  of  God,  to  redeem  themselves  from  the  disgrace,  by  putting 
an  end  to  their  episcopal  pretensions  at  once.  Now  it  must  occur 
to  the  reader,  that  few  men  ever  made  a  better  use  of  language 


than  Mr.  Wesley,  he  was  in  the  habit,  proverbially  so,  of  calling 
things  by  their  proper  names;  and  had  he  considered  doctor  Coke 
and  Mr.  Asbury  as  possessing  episcopal  powers,  in  any  other  than 
a  presbyterial  sense,  he  would  have  joined  with  the  world,  and 
christened  them  by  their  favourite  self-selected  title,  bishop.  But 
Mr.  Wesley  tells  them,  that  in  his  judgment,  it  would  be  more  to 
their  credit  to  be  called  by  men,  "a  fool,  a  rascal,  a  scoundrel,"  than 
to  be  called  "bishop,"  when  they  had  nothing  to  entitle  them  to  the 
distinction,  in  the  sense  in  which  they  used  it,  except  their  own 
affectation  of  episcopal  dignity.    4th.  From  the  preceding  facts,  it 
appears,  that  the  introduction  of  episcopacy  among  the  Methodists 
in  the  United  States,  so  far  from  being  "recommended"  by  Mr. 
Wesley,  icas  expressly  disapproved  and  forbidden,  and  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  General  Conference  of  1784,  in  establishing  diocesan 
episcopacy  among  us,  was  in  open  violation  of  the  instructions  of 
Mr.  Wesley;  and,  I  now  take  the  liberty  of  saying,  to  the  Rev.  Wm. 
M'-Kcndree,  Enoch  George,  Robert  R.  Roberts,  Joshua  Soule,  and 
Elijah  Hedding,  that  a  statement  on  this  subject,  to  which  I  find 
tlieir  names  subscribed,  in  the  preface  to  our  Book  of  Discipline,  is 
believed  by  many  to  be  a  perversion  of  historical  fact,  and  they  are 
hereby  publicly  called  upon,  to  furnish  some  evidence  of  the  truth  of 
the  aforesaid  statement;  or  leave  us  to  infer,  that  such  evidence  can- 
not be  produced.    In  justice,  hoxcever,  to  these  distinguished  indi- 
viduals in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  I  would  say  distinctly, 
I  believe  they  are  all  innocent  of  having  made  this  statement  origi- 
nally, but  they  have  made  it  their  own,  by  giving  it  tlie  sanction  of 
their  names,  as  I  have  not  been  able  to  learn,  that  this  preface  has 
ever  been  sanctioned  by  any  General  Conference,  if  it  lias,  upon 
learning  it,  I  shall  make  (should  God  preserve  my  life)  a  similar 
on  the  next  general  conference,  as  the  proper  organ  of  information. 
Jit  present  the  bishops  appear  to  be  the  only  responsible  persons,  and 
on  them  I  call.    Should  the  policy  of  the  cabinet  induce  them  to  re- 
main silent,  as  heretofore  on  similar  occasions,  I  shall  take  the 
liberty  of  thinking  they  cannot  answer  me,  without  damage  to  tlieir 
own  cause,  which  it  would  seem  must  be  supported  by  silence.  5th. 
As  it  is  in  proof  before  the  reader,  tluit  Methodist  episcopacy  can 
derive  no  support  from  the  name  or  sanction  of  Mr.  Wesley,  both 
having  been  definitely  withheld,  so  also,  does  it  admit  of  proof,  that 
tlie  great  body  of  the  Methodist  ministers  and  members  in  the  Unit- 
ed Slates  were  not  consulted  at  all,  in  the  adoption  of  this  enor- 
mously misshapen  system  of  aristocratic  government.    It  was  tlie 
undivulged  project,  tlie  favourite  scheme  of  a  few  master  spirits, 
who  meeting  in  secret  conclave,  and  excluding  tlie  junior  members, 
even  of  their  own  body,  (as  living  wit7iesses  declare)  acknowledging 
no  constitutional  rights,  and  comprehending  no  legislative  privi- 
leges, as  belonging  to  any  except  themselves,  proceeded  to  the  hasty 
formation  of  tlie  present  plan  of  government  among  us,  and  un- 
blushingly  palmed  it  upon  posterity,  as  the  offspring  of  Mr.  Wes- 


179 


ley's  wisdom  and  experience*  6th.  The  spurious  origin  of  Meth- 
odist episcopacy,  is  to  be  inferred  from  the  fact,  that  those  very  in- 
dividuals who  made  tliese  pretensions,  were  unsettled  and  felt  mis- 
givings on  the  subject. 

Dr.  Coke,  in  a  letter  to  Bishop  White,  of  Philadelphia,  doubts 
the  power  of  Mr.  Wesley  to  confer  legitimate  episcopal  authority; 
he  does  the  same  in  a  letter  to  the  bishop  of  London,  written  subse- 
quently, in  both  of  which  he  modestly  asks  for  re- ordination.  When- 
ever doctor  Coke  was  absent  from  this  country,  he  was  by  common 
consent  unbishoped,  both  in  Europe  and  America; — even  the  mitre 
could  not  preserve  those  who  wore  it  from  doubts,  and  fears,  and 
change.    Coke  admits  the  whole  system  to  be  an  ' 'aristocracy." 

At  one  time  they  attempted  to  establish  their  episcopal  preten 
sions  in  one  way,  at  another  on  very  and  widely  different  grounds. 
In  1785,  the  bishops  say,  in  their  Book  of  Discipline,  3d  section 
and  6th  page:  "The  uninterrupted  succession  of  bishops  from  the 
apostles,  can  be  proved  neither  from  the  scriptures  nor  from  anti- 
quity."   In  1789,  while  this  statement  was  fresh  in  the  recollec- 
tion, and  lying  on  the  shelves  of  the  Methodists  throughout  the 
United  States,  these  same  bishops,  publish  in  the  minutes  as  fol- 
lows:— "Ques.    Who  are  the  persons  that  exercise  the  episcopal 
office  in  the  Methodist  Church  in  Europe  and  America?  Ans. 
John  Wesley,  Thomas  Coke,  and  Francis  Asbury,  by  regular  order 
and  succession."    All  this  is  passing  strange!    I  will  not  dwell  on 
the  fact,  that  the  Methodists  have  never  assumed  the  style  of  a 
church  in  Europe,  much  less  at  the  time  that  this  was  written.  I 
will  not  pause  to  animadvert  upon  the  groundless  assertion,  that 
Mr.  Wesley  exercised  the  "episcopal"  office  in  Europe,  although 
every  man  of  reading  knows  he  did  not.    He  himself  affirms  it  was 
the  office  of  a  "presbyter"  he  exercised;  but,  I  come  at  once,  to 
notice  the  change  of  sentiment  in  these  men,  in  the  short  space  of 
four  years.  In  1784,  scripture  and  antiquity  demonstrated  the  doc- 
trine of  "uninterrupted  succession"  to  be  a  fable.   In  1789,  they 
have  ascertained  that  they  are  bishops  "by  regular  order  and  suc- 
cession."  Now  scripture  and  antiquity  have  become  a  little  more 
pliant,  and  speak  a  different  language.  Now  that  these  self-created 
bishops  have  a  little  more  power,  and  are  likely  to  become  estab- 
lished in  the  exercise  of  it,  the  want  of  countenance  from  "scrip- 
ture," and  the  misty  lore  of  "antiquity,"  are  ingeniously  kept  out 
of  sight,  and  the  hasty  admission  in  the  discipline,  that  bishops  are 
not  the  regular  successors  of  the  apostles,  is  struck  out  for  ever. 
Reader!  as  a  man  of  sense  and  candour,  I  ask  you  to  stop  and 
look  at  this,  re-read  the  above,  and  ponder  well  its  bearing.  The 
documents  are  all  before  me. 

In  the  present  preface  to  our  Book  of  Discipline,  the  adoption  of 
our  present  form  of  government  is  attributed  to  the  express  instruc- 
tions oj  Mr.  Wesley;  but  the  venerable  Wesley  has,  unequivocally, 
disavowed  the  honour,  and  no  one  has  ever  shown  or  quoted  the  doc- 

*  Witness  the  transactions  of  1773,1779— 178  4. 


180 


ument,  paper,  or  verbal  instructions  of  Mr.  Wesley.  It  is  now 
nearly  a  year,  since  all  our  bishops  were  respectfully  invited  to  fur- 
nish information  on  this  subject,  if  they  had  any  to  furnish; — they 
have  not  even  deigned  a  reply  of  any  kind.  Passing  by  the  uncour- 
teousness  of  such  an  act,  and  the  insult  it  offers  to  the  wishes  of  in- 
quiring thousands,  who  it  is  known  to  the  bishops,  feel  a  deep  inter- 
est in  the  subject,  I  shall  plead  their  apology,  by  taking  it  for  grant- 
ed, that  tliey  would  have  replied,  if  they  had  been  able  to  do  so,  with- 
out defacing  the  beauty  of  those  "institutions  received  from  their 
fathers"  many  of  whom  are  still  living;  or,  perhaps,  like  the  Chi- 
nese historians,  they  are  unacquainted  with  their  own  origin,  because 
their  living  fathers  conceal  it. 

But  finally,  Mr.  Asbury  pleads  his  authority,  as  a  Methodist 
bishop,  on  the  following  grounds:  '1st.  Divine  authority.  2d. 
Seniority  in  America.  3d.  Election  of  the  general  conference,  1784, 
4th.  Ordination  of  Coke,  Otterbine,  Whatcoat  and  Vasey.  5th. 
Because  the  signs  of  an  apostle  were  found  in  him"  See  Asbury'' s 
Journal  for  May,  1805,  third  volume,  page  168.  No  "succession" 
directly  hinted  at  here,  no  allusion  to  Mr.  Wesley.  On  this  expose 
of  the  arcana  of  Methodist  Episcopacy,  I  would  only  say  it  is  plain, 
Mr.  Asbury  is  here  speaking  of  himself  as  a  bishop  of  the  third 
order,  and  superior  to  presbyters.  Of  his  " Divine  authority"  we 
can  say  nothing,  only  we  know  it  was  not  received  from  the  Scrip- 
tures. As  to  "seniority"  we  have  yet  to  learn  that  it  ever  creates  any 
new  civil  or  religious  rights.  With  regard  to  the  vote  of  the  "gene- 
ral conference"  electing  Mr.  Asbury,  it  is  only  necessary  to  observe, 
they  might  have  acted  unadvisedly  in  this  vote  of  the  conference  of 
1784,  as  well  as  in  others,  and  we  know  that  many  of  the  acts  of 
that  very  conference,  have  been  since  repealed,  as  improper  and  dis- 
advantageous. On  the  subject  of  "ordination"  as  it  was  only  an 
ordination  by  presbyters,  we  cannot  admit  Us  a episcopal  validity," 
if  more  be  meant  than  a  presbyter.  As  it  respects  the  last  item,  the 
signs  of  an  apostle  can  only  be  seen  in  an  apostle,  and  of  course 
luive  not  been  seen  since  the  apostolic  age.  Thus  the  reader  will  perceive 
that  our  "fathers"  acted  a  palpably  inconsistent  part,  in  the  intro- 
duction of  episcopacy  among  us,  and  have  been  under  the  necessity 
{created  by  their  own  indiscretion)  of  acting  an  equally  awkward, 
and  I  fear  posterity  will  think,  ridiculous  part,  in  defending  them- 
selves against  the  charge,  of  a  reckless  usurpation  of  unwarranted 
power.  For  the  present,  Messrs.  Editors,  1  must  let  this  subject 
rest;  but  by  divine  permission,  its  examination  shall  be  resumed  in 
a  subsequent  number,  of  the  series  of  essays;  I  propose  to  send  you. 

To  reformers  I  would  respectfully  suggest,  "the  signs  of  the 
times"  are  becoming  rather  squally  and  ominous.  We  have  at  pre- 
sent a  troubled  atmosphere,  the  clouds  lower  and  the  tempest  im- 
pends, but  we  need  an  "Euroclydon"  of  the  moral  kind,  to  purify 
the  air.  The  only  way  to  get  rid  of  legalized  error,  and  pernicious 
practices  consecrated  by  long  usages,  is  fearlessly  to  attack  by 


181 


argument,  and  urge  by  expostulation,  until  you  reach  the  point 
of  proper  excitement,  when  those  concerned  will  begin  to  think 
and  act  for  themselves.  I  am  more  astonished  that  we  have  done 
as  much  as  we  have,  than  that  we  have  not  done  more.  When  my 
attention  was  first  called  to  this  subject,  I  stood  alone  in  one  of 
the  largest  conferences  in  the  United  States.  Now  I  have  a  score 
of  travelling  preachers  within  the  same  limits,  beside  a  large  num- 
ber of  local  preachers,  and  hundreds,  if  not  thousands  of  private 
members  who  think  as  I  do.  These  changes  are  working  every 
where,  and  their  influence  must  be  felt.  A  few  here  and  there, 
like  my  unknown  friend  D.  B.  Dorsey.  may  be  put  down,  by  some 
of  our  testy  "lords  over  God's  heritage,"  but  they  are  destined  to 
rise.  Sage  deliberative  bodies,  like  the  Baltimore  conference, 
may  pass  and  enforce  and  defy  the  contravention  of  such  "resolu- 
tions" as  those  offered  by  Mr.  Roszel  and  Mr.  Guest;  these  may 
be  rubricked  on  the  journals  and  minutes  of  the  conferences,  as 
important  precedents  and  mere  specimens  of  what  can  and  proba- 
bly will  be  done  hereafter,  "but  the  end  is  not  yet,"  these  delecta- 
ble morceaux  in  ecclesiastical  legislation,  have  to  pass  the  ordeal 
of  public  opinion.  The  above  named  gentlemen  will  be  honoured 
with  readers  as  well  as  hearers,  and  their  singular  efforts  to  loyal- 
ize  the  Methodists,  so  as  to  preclude  even  the  freedom  of  social 
inquiry,  and  epistolary  correspondence,  may  not  only  affect  the 
character,  but  may  induce  their  contemporaries  to  write  their 
epitaphs  before  they  are  dead!  This  "Bellum  Episcopale,"  as 
bishop  Pierce  calls  it,  this  "war  in  support  of  episcopacy,"  is  not 
ended,  they  may  yet  need  all  the  recruits  their  present  superiority, 
in  point  of  numbers,  will  be  able  to  furnish  them.  We  have  the 
Bible  on  our  side;  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church  sustains  us; 
public  opinion  is  our  friend  and  ally;  the  civil  institutions  of  our 
country  lend  us  aid,  and  the  genius  of  American  freedom,  throws 
her  protecting  shadow  over  every  friend  of  equal  representation 
and  mutual  rights.  If  we  should  not  live  ourselves  to  witness  the 
achievement  of  the  objects  we  have  in  view,  the  "clods  of  the 
valley"  will  be  sweetened  by  the  reflection  that  our  children 
may.  Let  us,  therefore,  labour  and  faint  not;  if  "cast  down  we 
are  not  destroyed." 

In  this  contest,  my  brethren,  the  similitude  of  our  trials,  may  be 
the  "smoking  flax  and  the  bruised  reed,"  but  the  one  shall  smoke 
on,  and  the  other  unbroken,  shall  continue  to  bend  before  the  blast. 
Let  your  rulers  insidiously  expel  you  (as  ministers)  from  their 
pulpits,  by  not  inviting  you  there,  it  will  only  lessen  the  number  of 
their  own  hearers,  while  the  good  sense  and  discernment  of  the 
public,  will  take  you  up,  and  you  will  find  yourselves  cherished 
in  the  high  places  of  their  affection  and  esteem,  where  your  op- 
pressors will  seek  in  vain  to  intrude.*    To  conclude,  our  attitude 

•We  had  been  excluded  from  the  pulpits  in  Baltimore,  because  we  had  the 
impudence  to  espouse  the  cause  of  Rev.  D.  B.  Dorsey  in  defiance  of  the  Bal- 
timore Annual  Conference. 
24 


182 


is  one  of  petition  and  address  for  our  rights;  rights  which  we 
claim  as  Christ's  freemen,  in  the  bosom  of  a  branch  of  his  church 
and  people;  rights  founded  on  the  testimony  of  God's  word,  and 
the  practice  of  the  primitive  church;  we  resist  only  when  we  are 
oppressed  ;  as  members  of  the  great  family  of  our  common  father, 
we  ask  to  be  treated  as  his  children,  and  we  shall  continue  to  ask. 
If  tauntingly  requested  by  "the  powers  that  be,"  to  leave  the 
church,  we  reply,  if  you  wish  a  division,  separate  yourselves;  if 
required  to  lay  down  our  arms,  (they  are  those  of  reason  and  scrip- 
ture) we  say  to  our  rulers,  "Come  and  take  them." 

June  1,  1827.  Neale. 

Doctor  Bond,  having  selected  those  fragments  which  are  print- 
ed in  italics,  proceeds  to  make  his  remarks;  and  instead  of  touch- 
ing the  merits  of  the  papers,  he  flies  away  from  the  arguments 
and  attempts  to  hide  behind  the  cloud  of  ill  founded  prejudice, 
which  his  party  had  raised  against  a  certain  pamphlet  entitled 
"The  History  and  Mystery  of  Methodist  Episcopacy."  *  *  *  "The 
co-partnership"  says  he,  "is  obvious." 

Previous  to  the  publication  of  the  Narrative  and  Defence,  un- 
bounded pains  had  been  taken,  to  raise  the  prejudices  of  the 
Methodist  people  against  Mr.  M'Caine's  pamphlet.  Mr.  Emory 
had  attempted  to  answer  it,  and  in  the  opinion  of  Doctor  Bond 
and  his  friends,  had  produced  a  "masterly  refutation  of  all  the 
allegations  in  the  History  and  Mystery,  &c."  Relying  upon 
this  "masterly  refutation"  and  the  existing  prejudices  of  his  party, 
he  seems  to  have  thought  it  all  sufficient  to  secure  our  condemna- 
tion, if  he  could  shew,  that  Dissenter's,  Presbyter's  and  Neale's 
papers  contained  "assertions"  which  had  an  "obvious  coincidence" 
with  those  published  by  Mr.  M'Caine — This,  by  the  way,  was  an 
argument  for  the  good  people  who  were  prepared  "unanimously" 
to  condemn  the  Mutual  Rights  "without  having  read  the  work  at 
all."  Dissenter's  paper  is  dated  December  29th,  1826;  Presbyter's 
March  27th,  1827.  And  on  the  30th  of  March,  1827,  Mr. 
M'Caine  obtained  from  the  clerk  of  the  District  of  Maryland,  his 
certificate  of  copy  right.  The  writer  of  Dissenter  and  Presbyter 
was  also  the  author  of  Neale ;  and  his  residence  too  remote  from 
Mr.  M'Caine  to  justify  the  conclusion,  that  there  was  any  co- 
partnership or  collusion  practised  between  them.  The  Doctor 
and  his  friends  must  not  be  surprised  if  they  learn  before  they  die, 
that  many  men  of  sound  judgment  are  not  quite  satisfied  with 
the  "masterly  refutation."  Any  man  of  good  understanding  who 
shall  chance  to  read  these  papers  of  Dissenter,  Presbyter  and 
Neale,  will  perceive,  that  the  writer  is  not  a  man  of  ordinary  at- 
tainments. The  papers  speak  in  a  language  irresistible.  And 
neither  Doctor  Emory  nor  Doctor  Bond  has  succeeded  in  shewing 
that  they  ought  not  to  have  been  published  in  the  Mutual  Rights. 
Besides  it  should  not  be  overlooked,  that,  outrageous  as  they 
have  represented  the  History  and  Mystery  to  be,  and  wicked  as 
they  would  have  their  people  to  believe  the  writer  of  that  pamphlet 
is,  they  found  it  necessary  to  prepare  the  "masterly  refutation"  with 


183 


the  hope  of  preventing  its  effect.  If  the  refutation  was  so  com- 
plete, why  did  they  not  trust  to  the  corrective  power  of  this  masterly 
work,  instead  of  having  recourse  to  expulsion?  Doctor  Bond  says  there 
is  no  doubt  that  we  generally  encouraged  Mr.  M'Caine  to  publish  his 
work.  On  the  supposition  that  we  were  acquainted  with  Mr.  Mc- 
Caine's  intended  publication,  in  reply  to  which  the  "masterly  refuta- 
tion" had  not  then  been  published,  was  it  at  all  inconsistent  with  our 
duty,  as  editors  of  the  periodical  which  was  open  for  essays  upon 
the  government  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  to  admit  papers 
written  in  the  best  style,  because  they  possessed  point,  more  espe- 
cially when  we  knew  they  would  be  sustained  by  a  pamphlet  which 
would  require  a  "masterly  refutation?"  and  which,  after  all  this 
boasting  about  its  "refutation,"  in  respect  to  the  great  question  at 
issue,  still  remains  unanswered?  Every  sensible  man  in  these 
United  States  must  see,  upon  an  investigation  of  the  subject,  that 
our  expulsion  for  admitting  these  papers  into  our  periodical  was  al- 
together out  of  character.  The  perpetrators  of  this  outrage  may 
keep  one  another  in  countenance,  but  the  day  will  come,  when  those 
who  may  wish  to  revere  their  memories,  will  not  find  it  an  easy  task. 

From  the  two  succeeding  papers,  the  one  by  the  Rev'd.  N. 
Snethen,  the  other  by  the  Rev'd.  Asa  Shinn,  extracts  were  taken 
which  are  represented  by  doctor  Bond  to  be  very  objectionable. 
They  are  therefore  printed  at  large.  Considering  the  occasions 
which  produced  them,  nothing  more  is  necessary.  The  parts  ex- 
tracted, and  commented  on  by  doctor  Bond,  are  in  italics. 

It  is  proper  to  state  as  a  prelude  to  Mr.  Snethen's  address,  that 
it  was  written  and  published,  immediately  after  the  Baltimore  An- 
nual Conference  had  suspended  Mr.  D.  B.  Dorsey. 


CHAPTER  XXII. 

An  Address  to  the  friends  of  reform,  by  N.  Snethen. 

Dear  Brethren, 

You  have  heard  of  what  was  done  in  the  bounds  of  the  Virginia 
Conference;  and  will  hear  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Baltimore  Annual 
Conference,  in  the  case  of  Dennis  B.  Dorsey.  I  notice  this  last  case 
as  proof  of  the  fact,  that  the  itinerant  preachers  have  taken  a  stand 
against  reform,  or  representation,  which  must  change  our  relation  to 
reform.  We  are  no  longer  to  consider  ourselves  as  standing  upon  the 
open  and  equal  ground  of  argument  with  those  brethren  in  behalf  of  a 
principle;  but  as  the  supporters  of  what  we  conceive  to  be  truth  and 
right,  opposed  by  power.  From  the  beginning,  I  have  considered  the 
avoiding  of  written  discussion  by  almost  all  the  itinerant  preachers  on 
the  old  side,  as  ominous  of  this  issue,  and  have  not  ceased  to  antici~ 
pate  the  time  when  a  display  of  the  plenary  powers  in  their  hands  would 
in  effect  place  us  as  lambs  among  wolves,  and  call  upon  us  to  be  11  wise 
as  serpents  and  harmless  as  doves." 

I  understand  the  text  in  its  original  application,  "I  send  you  forth 


184 


as  lambs  among  wolves, v  that  is,  with  truth  and  right,  among  those  who 
have  both  the  power  and  disposition  to  resist  your  principles  and  to  de- 
stroy you,  but  I  give  you  no  means  of  self-defence,  but  the  wisdom  of 
the  serpent,  tempered  with  the  harmlessness  of  the  dove.  We  have  all 
along  asserted,  that  there  is  power  enough  in  the  rulers  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church,  to  excommunicate  us  all,  and  we  are  still  of  the 
same  opinion;  but  if  any  one  should  doubt  it,  let  him  remember,  that 
the  body  of  men  of  whom  we  mean  to  ask  for  a  fish,  may  give  us  a  scor- 
pion; that  the  very  general  conference  of  J 828,  may  make  rules,  if  they 
conceive  they  are  not  already  made,  to  reach  every  reformer. 

Our  relation  I  say  was  changed  in  point  of  fact,  from  the  day  the 
power  of  the  itinerant  preachers  waked  into  action.  The  most  distin- 
guished preacher  who  should  advocate  the  principle  of  representation 
would  find  himself  obnoxious  to  power,  as  well  as  the  least  member  in 
the  church.  No  man  among  us  has  power  to  oppose  to  power;  and 
truth  or  right  in  the  mouth  of  a  minister  wouldnot  lose  its  lamb -like  help- 
lessness, when  assailed  by  the  power  of  a  majority  of  itinerant  preach- 
ers. I'his  majority  have  all  the  claws  and  all  the  teeth,  and  therefore, 
every  man  may  be  made  to  fear. 

This  fact,  brethren,  we  ought  not  by  any  excitement  of  zeal,  to  lose 
sight  of  for  a  moment.  I  therefore  repeat  it,  truth  or  right  in  the  grasp 
of  power,  is  like  lambs  among  wolves.  Hitherto  reformers  have  spoken 
and  written  freely  and  openly,  they  have  had  no  secrets,  the  wisdom  of 
the  serpent  was  not  necessary.  The  charge  of  imprudence  and  the 
general  cast  of  all  the  objections  brought  against  them,  goes  to  shew, 
that  power  was  not  roused,  that  the  prey  though  within  reaching  dis- 
tance, was  not  seized.  Henceforth  the  character  and  conduct  of  Me- 
thodists must  rapidly  change.  On  the  side  of  power  there  will  be 
fierceness,  and  on  the  side  of  right  concealment.  Threatenings  and 
suspicions  ivill  mightily  prevail.  A  name  has  already  been  demanded, 
not  I  suppose  to  satisfy  curiosity,  or  to  confute  arguments,  but  for  pun- 
ishment, or  at  least  impeachment. 

Heretofore  it  is  doubtful  if  a  single  travelling  preacher  has  written 
for  the  Wesley  an  Repository  or  the  Mutual  Rights,  who  was  not  known 
to  his  superiors.  The  writers  themselves  often  confided  their  proper 
names  to  their  brethren,  and  so  they  felt  not  like  lambs  among  wolves; 
but  a  few  examples  in  the  Annual  Conferences  will  put  an  end  to  this 
kind  af  generous  rivalship.  Travelling  preachers  themselves  will  be 
thus  painfully  taught  the  wisdom  of  the  serpent — taught  to  eludepower 
by  policy.  What  a  temptation  will  this  prove  to  trespass  upon  the  in- 
nocence of  the  dove!  Brother  Dorsey,  it  seems,  was  advised  by  his 
friends  (in  this  advice  I  did  not  participate,)  not  to  an  sic  er  any  ques- 
tion which  might  criminate  himself.  This  refusal  to  answer  questions, 
this  putting  the  conference  upon  the  proof  of  his  guilt,  made  a  part 
of  his  offence.  Who  then  did  he  thus  offend!  No  one  but  the  members 
of  the  Annual  Conference.  Now  mark  brethren,  the  importance  of 
this  whole  transaction:  not  to  brother  Dorsey  merely,  but  to  us  all. 
Let  this  procedure  be  established  as  a  precedent,  and  of  what  avail 
will  the  maxim  of  our  Master  be  to  us?  How  can  we  maintain  the 
harmlessness  of  the  dove?  How  escape  the  jaws  of  power  without  dis- 
simulation?   Surely  if  we  have  no  right  to  keep  our  own  secrets  among 


185 


those  who  make  a  man  an  offender  for  a  word,  we  have  no  means  of 
self  preservation,  but  in  the  unqualified  wisdom  of  the  serpent. — 
Brother  Dorsey  by  a  vote  of  the  Annual  Conference,  is  deprived 
of  a  station  for  one  year.  Will  either  of  these  voters  feel  any 
twitches  or  qualms  of  conscience  in  treating  either  of  us  relatively 
in  the  same  way,  if  we  refuse  to  answer  and  to  promise  as  they 
may  please,  and  to  punish  us  for  contumacy,  or  contempt  of  court? — 
And  that  too,  while  in  our  courts  of  law  no  man  is  required  to  an- 
swer any  question  which  goes  to  criminate  himself.  If  brother 
Dorsey  were  imprisoned  or  banished  for  one  year,  by  an  Annual 
Conference  for  contumacy,  all  the  state  of  Maryland  would  be  up 
in  arms.  The  sound  of  the  outcry  of  the  deed  would  reach  the 
ends  of  the  earth.  Persecution!  would  be  re-echoed  in  all  direc- 
tions; and  yet,  in  case  either  of  imprisonment  or  banishment,  he 
might  preach  as  much  in  the  capacity  of  a  travelling  preacher  as 
these  brethren  intend  he  shall  in  this  case.  The  truth  is,  brethren, 
that  there  is  the  very  essence  of  persecution  in  this  act  of  the  Bal- 
timore Annual  Conference.  As  a  precedent,  it  deprives  us  of  our 
last,  our  only  resort  to  defend  ourselves  against  power,  which  we 
can  employ  consistently  with  our  christian  character.  Is  not  pun- 
ishment for  telling  the  truth  and  a  reward  for  dissimulation,  in  effect, 
the  same?  I  know  brethren,  that  we  shall  be  accused  of  party 
spirit  and  party  purposes,  in  espousing  the  cause  of  this  brother, 
but  it  is  not  so;  by  this  dispensation  we  are  sent  forth  as  lambs 
among  wolves.  Power  has  usurped  authority  over  truth;  we  are  not 
to  be  reasoned  with,  but  punished.  In  this  new  condition,  what  are 
we  to  do?  We  must  go  to  the  New  Testament  for  direction  and 
instruction;  and  there  we  learn,  that  we  must  be  wise  as  serpents 
and  harmless  as  doves.  Must  we  not  then  espouse  the  principle, 
and  can  we  do  this,  without  espousing  the  cause  of  the  first  martyr 
of  it  in  the  Baltimore  Annual  Conference?  Your  turn,  my  turn, 
may  come  next.  It  is  an  awful  thing  to  be  driven  by  the  power  of 
a  majority  from  the  last  asylum  of  harmlessness — to  be  reduced  to 
the  dreadful  alternative  of  dissimulation  or  bearing  witness  against 
one's  self. 

On  the  critical  situation  of  brother  Dorsey's  health,  passing  from 
his  bed  to  the  conference  for  several  days,  in  which  he  was  kept 
in  painful  suspense,  I  shall  not  enlarge;  for  though  these  circum- 
stances may  have  produced  a  crisis  in  his  disease,  though  his  death 
may  be  thus  accelerated,  even  this  would  be  a  small  matter  com- 
pared with  the  consequences  of  this  principle  as  it  relates  to  the 
souls  of  men,  this  sin  against  the  brethren!  It  is  not  to  your  sym- 
pathies that  I  am  addressing  myself;  but  to  the  sacred  regard  which 
I  hope  and  trust,  you  feel  for  the  vital  principle  of  all  human  so- 
ciety. Let  the  wolf  of  authority,  the  unrelenting  majority,  either 
in  church  or  state,  leave  us  to  a  harmless  silence,  let  them  not 
compel  us  to  bear  witness  against  ourselves,  and  the  wisdom  of 
the  serpent  may  shield  us,  may  yet  enable  us,  in  the  enjoyment  of 
a  good  conscience,  to  elude  their  death-grasp. 

/  deem  it  proper,  brethren,  that  in  this  portentous  change,  in  this 


186 


state  of  our  affairs,  that  you  should  hear  my  voice,  should  see  my 
name.  It  will,  I  know  it  will,  it  must  he  asked,  now  the  time  is 
come  to  try  men's  souls,  where  is  Philopisticus?  Where  is  Ady- 
nasius?  Where  is  Senex?  Where  is  the  man  who  was  among  the 
foremost  to  challenge  us  to  the  cause  of  representation?  Where  is 
Snethen?  I  trust  that  while  he  is  among  the  living,  hut  one  answer 
will  he  given  to  this  question — he  is  at  his  post,  he  is  in  the  front  of 
the  contest,  lie  is  shouting,  on,  brethren,  on!  and  if  he  fall,  it  will 
be  with  a  wound  in  his  breast,  and  with  his  head  direct  towards  the 
opponent. 

It  is  the  command  of  the  great  Captain  of  our  salvation,  that  we 
may  not  hurt  even  a  hair  on  the  head  of  those  who  hold  the  power 
to  hurt  us,  even  by  the  wisdom  of  the  serpent.  We  may  not  lie, 
even  for  the  glory  of  God;  but  we  may  be  silent,  we  may  leave 
those  in  ignorance  whom  we  know  will  not  only  not  see,  but  pun- 
ish those  who  offer  to  give  them  light.  The  old  side  men  have 
done  a  strange  thing  in  the  earth:  they  have  placed  themselves 
hors  du  combat;  they  have  done  more,  they  have  tempted  us  to  smite 
them  in  the  back,  to  aim  invisible  strokes  at  them — to  conspire  for 
their  overthrow.  Let  us  not  avail  ourselves  of  the  advantages 
which  their  folly  or  want  of  foresight  has  given  us!  But  I  call 
upon  you  by  every  sacred  name,  to  resist  this  inquisitorial  power, ' 
this  attempt  to  renew  in  America,  the  old,  the  exploded  principle 
of  torture,  this  monstrous  outrage  upon  the  principles  of  civil  and 
religious  liberty; — the  punishing  of  men  for  not  submitting  to  crim- 
inate themselves.  0  defend  to  the  last  extremity,  this  final  sanc- 
tuary of  oppressed  innocence.  What  may  not  the  traitor  to  this 
cause  expect?  Where  can  he  find  shelter  from  the  frowns  of 
Heaven  and  earth,  and  the  self  torture  of  his  own  reflections? 

Of  the  labour  of  seven  years,  I  make  no  account.  I  was  not  a 
lamb  among  wolves.  My  courage,  my  resolution  was  not  put  to 
the  test.  I  have  never  been  questioned,  never  called  to  account, 
not  even  threatened.  The  fiery  trial  has  come  upon  one  who  is  as 
the  shadow  of  a  man,  a  walking  skeleton,  and  I  yet  go  free! — 
Mysterious  providence!  Thank  God,  the  afflicted  man's  soul  is  in 
health,  his  fortitude  is  unimpaired  by  disease,  he  has  the  courage 
and  the  constancy  of  a  martyr:  Lord,  let  the  young  man  live  and 
not  die!  Let  not  the  wife  of  his  youth  be  a  premature  widow. 
I  cannot  now  desert  the  cause  and  be  innocent  before  God  or 
man.  I  cannot  now  be  silent  and  be  harmless.  I  therefore  ad- 
vertise you  of  the  change,  and  earnestly  entreat  you  to  conform 
to  it  by  conforming  to  the  directions  of  the  Master,  "Be  ye, 
therefore,  wise  as  serpents,  and  harmless  as  doves."  Your  af- 
fectionate fellow  labourer  in  the  great  cause  of  church  represen- 
tation. N.  Snethex. 

Every  reader  must  see  that  the  occasion  called  for  this  paper; — 
and  that  the  paper  speaks  for  itself. 


187 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 

The  sovereignty  of  Metfiodism  in  the  South. 

Petersburg,  Va.  Feb.  22,  1827. 
"The  Virginia  Annual  Conference,  which  sat  in  this  place,  has 
just  risen.  The  Granville  Union  Society  of  North  Carolina,  pre- 
sented to  it  a  petition,  praying  that  seven  members,  lately  expelled 
from  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  for  joining  the  Granville 
Union  Society,  be  restored  to  their  former  standing.  The  petition- 
ers alleged,  that  although  the  charge  exhibited  against  them  was 
that  of  inveighing  against  the  discipline,  yet  nothing  was  proved 
against  them  on  the  trial,  but  their  having  joined  the  Granville 
Union  Society.  That  when  the  preacher  in  charge*  found  he 
could  not  substantiate  his  charge,  he  put  the  following  question  to 
the  society,  "You  that  believe  their  being  members  of  the  Union 
Society  will  have  a  bad  effect,  will  rise  up."  That  a  majority  of 
those  present  were  of  that  opinion  and  rose  up,  upon  which  the 
preacher  read  them  out  as  expelled.  With  the  petition,  the  Gran- 
ville Union  Society  presented  a  charge  against  the  preacher  for  mal- 
administration; but  the  conference  decided  that  it  was  not  mal-ad- 
ministration.  Thus  the  door  is  closed  on  our  unfortunate  brethren, 
and  opened  for  all  the  reformers  to  be  pushed  out  of  the  church. 

Willis  Harris." 

The  first  thing  here  demanding  attention  is,  the  charge  present- 
ed against  those  brethen  of  "inveighing  against  the  discipline." 
If  the  true  notion  of  "an  inveigher"  is,  "a  vehement  railer,"  as 
our  learned  men  have  told  the  world  it  is,  then  surely  it  is  possible 
for  a  man  to  object  to  a  principle  or  rule  of  government,  without 
"inveighing"  against  it.  But  let  us  have  divine  authority:  "Michael 
the  archangel,  when  contending  with  the  devil,  durst  not  bring 
against  him  a  railing  accusation,  but  said,  the  Lord  rebuke  thee." 
Jude  7.  Hence  it  appears,  from  the  authority  of  God,  that  if  we 
should  so  remonstrate  against  a  law  of  discipline,  as  to  say  to  the 
author  of  it,  "The  Lord  rebuke  thee,"  this  would  not  be  "a  railing 
accusation,"  and  consequently  would  not  constitute  us  guilty  of 
the  charge  of  "inveighing." 

But  the  members  of  our  ecclesiastical  courts,  doubtless  claim 
the  right  of  explaining  the  law,  as  well  as  executing  it.  If  they 
refuse  to  receive  the  explanation  above  given,  they  must  believe 
that  all  objecting,  reasoning  and  petitioning  against  a  rule  of  dis- 
cipline, is  to  "inveigh"  against  it.  If  they  mean  this,  let  them  say 
so  in  plain  language;  and  let  the  free-born  sons  of  America  open 
their  eyes,  and  see  what  is  claimed  by  these  men:  first,  they  claim 
the  right  to  make  laws  at  pleasure,  without  having  a  single  repre- 
sentative of  the  people  among  them;  secondly,  they  claim  the  right 
to  be  the  judges  and  explainers  of  their  own  laws;  thirdly,  they 
claim  the  right  to  enjoin  silence  on  all  their  subjects,  so  that  they  shall 

*  Mr.  Benton  Field. 


188 


not  speak,  or  reason,  or  petition  for  amendment,  on  pain  of  excom- 
munication! If  all  this  can  pass  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
and  pass  without  the  indignation  of  the  community,  I  have  mis- 
taken the  sense  and  spirit  of  my  countrymen. 

These  august  law-makers  are  free  from  all  restraint. — First,  they 
are  free  from  the  restraints  of  representation:  no  delegate  of  the 
people  can  open  his  mouth  in  their  legislative  assemblies.  Se- 
condly, they  are  free  from  constitutional  restraint:  for  though  they 
have  a  little  instrument  of  their  own  making,  which  they  call  a  con- 
stitution, yet  it  is  evident  to  common  sense,  that  it  is  no  constitu- 
tion of  the  people;  and  the  makers  of  it  can  alter  it  when  they 
please,  without  the  people  having  a  single  voice  in  the  matter. 
Thirdly,  they  are  free  from  any  restraint  of  scripture:  for  in  their 
law-book  we  read,  that  when  members  have  broken  their  rules  of 
discipline,  "If  they  do  not  amend,  let  him  who  has  the  charge  of 
the  circuit,  exclude  them,  [the  church]  shewing  that  they  are  laid 
aside  for  a  breach  of  our  rules  of  discipline,  and  not  for  immoral  con- 
duct." Book  of  Discipline,  page  82.  Thus  it  stands  glaring  in 
the  open  face  of  heaven,  that  the  "Methodist  Episcopal  Church" 
claims  authority  to  expel  members  from  the  church  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  who  are  guilty  of  no  breach  of  his  laws  ("not  for  im- 
moral conduct")  but  merely  because  they  have  violated  such  "rules 
of  our  discipline"  as,  according  to  her  own  confession,  involve 
no  immorality!  It  is  evident,  if  the  church  has  authority  to  make 
one  such  law,  she  has  authority  to  make  a  thousand:  of  course 
she  can  make  laws,  and  expel  members,  independent  of  Divine 
revelation. 

But,  our  Virginia  brethren,  in  expelling  those  members  in  such  a 
lordly  manner,  practically  assumed  the  principle,  that  in  their  ad- 
ministration they  need  no  law  at  all,  save  the  will  of  the  executive 
officer.  He  put  the  question,  "You  who  believe  that  their  being 
members  of  the  Union  Society,  will  have  a  bad  effect,  will  rise," 
&/C.  What  law  can  this  brother  find,  even  in  "our  discipline," 
which  says  a  committee  or  society  have  authority  to  expel  members 
for  any  thing  which  they  "believe  will  have  a  bad  effect?"  This 
would  put  supreme  power  in  a  court  of  judicature,  and  would 
supersede  the  necessity  of  every  other  law:  let  the  legislature  pass 
a  law,  that  the  court  may  condemn  men  for  any  thing,  which  they 
"believe  will  have  a  bad  effect,"  and  this  law  alone  will  be  suffi- 
cient to  regulate  all  judicial  proceeding.  Such  was  the  conduct 
of  "the  preacher  in  charge!"  Who  might  as  well  have  said,  "You 
who  wish  the  brethren  to  be  expelled,  will  rise  up!"  And,  more 
astonishing  still!  This  pitiful  and  contemptible  course  of  conduct, 
we  are  informed,  was  brought  before  the  Virginia  Conference,  and 
they  "decided  that  it  was  not  mal-administration!"  This  loyal 
and  orthodox  conference,  appears  to  claim  the  right  of  exercising 
the  authority  of  Eastern  despotism:  "All  people,  nations,  and  lan- 
guages, trembled  and  feared  before  him:  whom  he  would  he  slew: 
and  whom  he  would  he  kept  alive;  and  whom  he  would  he  set  up; 
and  whom  he  would  he  put  down."  Dan.  v.  19.  So  "the  preacher 
in  charge,"  whose  "administration"  is  before  us:  "he  would  that 


189 


those  "radical"  members  should  be  expelled;  and  as  he  had  no  law 
of  God  nor  man  to  support  him,  he  had  them  expelled  by  a  law  of 
his  own  will:  "You  that  believe  that  their  being  members  of  the 
Union  Society  will  have  a  bad  effect,  will  rise  up!"  And  because 
"a  majority  happened  to  be  of  this  opinion,"  he  "read  them  out 
of  society." 

If  a  single  preacher  can  exercise  such  power,  and  be  patronized 
by  an  annual  conference,  what  may  we  expect  to  hear,  when  the 
time  shall  come,  for  people  to  go  up  to  the  general  conference? 
If  the  bishop  should  be  there,  and  have  the  weight  of  the  confer- 
ence made  up  with  his  presiding  elders,  will  it  be  said,  "All  peo- 
ple, nations,  and  languages,  trembled  and  feared  before  him :  whom 
he  would  he  slew;  and  whom  he  would  he  kept  alive  ;  and  whom 
he  would  he  set  up;  and  whom  he  would  he  put  down?"  Suppose 
the  next  general  conference  should  pass  a  law,  that  every  man 
who  has  written  any  thing  for  the  Mutual  Rights  shall  be  forthwith 
expelled;  and  that  every  member  who  has  a  single  number  of  this 
"extraordinary  publication,"  shall  commit  it  to  the  flames,  on  pain 
of  excommunication:  will  any  man  question  their  right  to  pass 
such  a  law?  They  evidently  have  as  good  a  right  to  do  this,  as 
to  pass  any  law  whatever  to  dismember  the  disciples  of  Jesus 
Christ,  who  are  at  the  same  time  acknowledged  to  be  free  from 
"immoral  conduct."  It  appears  they  not  only  claim  the  right  to 
enact  such  laws,  and  expel  members  for  breaking  them,  but  also 
to  expel  them  for  making  any  objection  to  the  law!  Do  these  men 
really  think  they  can  keep  the  people  of  the  United  States  hood- 
winked in  this  manner?  If  they  are  unwilling  the  people  should 
enjoy  the  liberty  of  speech  and  of  the  press,  do  they  not  give  a 
demonstration  in  the  presence  of  heaven  and  earth,  that  ecclesias- 
tical power  has  far  greater  eagerness  to  destroy  the  just  freedom 
and  rights  of  mankind;  than  civil  power  has?  Here,  our  civil  rulers 
let  us  quietly  enjoy  those  privileges,  without  manifesting  any  signs 
of  reluctance;  nay,  they  appear  to  take  pleasure  in  protecting  us 
in  the  enjoyment  of  this  liberty:  while  professed  ministers  of  the 
meek  and  benevolent  Saviour  of  mankind,  who  call  themselves  the 
followers  of  the  great  and  amiable  Wesley,  wish  to  deprive  us  of  it, 
under  pretence  that  we  are  inveighing  against  their  laws!  Tell  it 
not  it  Gath;  publish  it  not  in  the  streets  of  Askelon;  lest  the  Ma- 
hometans and  Pagans  rejoice  and  triumph,  to  see  us  equal  or  sur- 
pass them  in  priestly  insolence  and  dominion. 

By  the  late  act  of  the  Virginia  annual  conference,  in  sanctioning 
the  administration  of  Benton  Field  and  others,  it  is  practically 
avowed,  that  the  Methodist  people  are  not  under  a  government  of 
laws  at  all.  There  must  first  be  a  law  in  existence,  by  which  mem- 
bers can  be  expelled  for  doing  what  the  court  may  believe  "will 
have  a  bad  effect,"  before  "the  preacher  in  charge"  can  execute 
such  a  law;  there  must  first  be  an  act  of  the  legislature,  saying, 
members  shall  be  expelled  for  joining  the  Granville  Union  Society, 
or  signing  its  constitution,  before  an  executive  officer  can  arrest 
members  under  such  a  law,  and  before  a  jury  can  have  authority  to 
25 


190 


judge  of  their  innocence  or  guilt  in  the  breach  of  it.  This  conduct 
is  still  worse  than  passing  an  ex  post  facto  law,  which  according 
to  our  American  constitution,  is  destructive  of  civil  liberty,  and 
inconsistent  with  all  good  government.  Let  "our  people"  duly 
consider  what  will  be  the  consequences,  if  they  tamely  look  on, 
and  see  such  precedents  sanctioned  by  the  high  authority  of  "the 
Methodist  clergy."  They  will  not  stop  at  the  Granville  Union 
Society;  they  will  not  stop  at  the  reformers,  for  after  all  these  "rest- 
less spirits"  shall  be  put  out  of  the  way,  such  "true  friends  of  old 
Methodism"  as  Benton  Field  and  his  coadjutors,  will  soon  be  on 
the  look-out  for  new  offenders:  and  any  persons  among  the  "laity" 
or  "locality"  will  be  liable  to  arrest  and  expulsion,  whenever  "the 
preacher  in  charge"  shall  be  displeased  with  any  part  of  their  con- 
duct, and  shall  be  able  to  persuade  his  jury,  "it  will  have  a  bad 
effect." 

If  the  Virginia  brethren  should  urge,  that  the  Granville  members 
were  expelled  under  the  law  which  forbids  "inveighing  against  our 
discipline,"  it  would  be  well  for  the  Methodist  people  to  reflect 
seriously  upon  this  plea. 

The  Bible,  being  clothed  with  the  grandeurs  of  Divine  Authority, 
demands  our  implicit  submission;  so  that  we  have  no  right  to 
object  to  any  of  its  laws,  to  petition  for  amendment,  or  to  use  any 
efforts  whatever,  to  bring  about  any  alteration.  Now  if  the  above 
rule  of  discipline  is  intended  to  lay  on  us  the  same  restriction,  and 
to  enforce  the  Methodist  episcopal  government,  as  absolutely  as 
the  government  of  the  Almighty  is  enforced;  does  not  this  look  like 
the  man  of  sin  seating  himsel  f  in  the  temple  of  God,  and  shewing 
himself  that  he  is  God!  But  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  it 
would  seem,  claims  even  higher  authority  than  the  Bible  does;  for 
she  not  only  prohibits  all  objecting  and  petitioning  against  her 
present  laws,  as  the  Almighty  does,  but  also  demands  the  same  im- 
plicit submission  to  all  the  laws  she  may  see  proper  to  enact  in 
future!  We  know  not  what  her  future  laws  may  be,  but  we  are 
bound  before  hand,  not  to  "inveigh"  against  them:  that  is,  not  to 
object,  or  petition,  or  use  any  efforts  towards  any  alteration  or 
amendment!  If  this  be  the  "system"  which  is  "approved"  by  the 
"best  judgment"  of  our  official  brethren  of  "Baltimore  city  station," 
let  this  fact  stand  as  the  eighth  wonder  of  the  world;  and  if  this  ex- 
plication of  the  "inveighing"  rule  be  not  contended  for,  then  let 
the  Virginia  annual  conference  confess,  that  the  administration  of 
Benton  Field  was  perfectly  lawless. 

But,  it  seems,  we  must  argue  upon  principle,  as  well  as  upon 
law:  William  Compton  says,  in  his  reply  to  Ivey  Harris,  "You 
inquire  under  question  2d,  'Was  our  aged  brother  convicted,  or 
even  charged  with  any  thing  that,  in  your  estimation,  would  exclude 
him  from  the  kingdom  of  heaven?  If  not,  why  give  your  vote  to 
exclude  him  from  the  church  militant?'  The  plain  English  of  this 
is,  that  no  person  ought  to  be  excluded  from  the  Methodist  (which 
you  are  pleased  to  call  militant)  church,  unless  he  be  guilty  of 
something  that  would  exclude  him  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  This 
plea,  I  think,  was  sufficiently  met  by  brother  Howard.    But,  as 


191 


most  of  us  are  forgetful  hearers  of  those  things  which  confute  our 
strongest  arguments  in  favour  of  a  beloved  theory,  it  may  not  be 
amiss  to  repeat  the  substance  of,  at  least,  a  part  of  what  he  said. 
And  to  make  this  more  forcible,  permit  me  to  preface  it  with  one 
or  two  questions.  Will  you  say,  that  the  Presbyterians  because 
they  are  Calvinists,  or  the  Baptists  because  they  deny  infant 
baptism  and  free  communion,  or  the  Protestant  Episcopalians 
because  they  contend  for  a  regular  succession  in  the  ministry,  are 
heretics,  and  ought,  therefore  to  be  excluded  the  kingdom  of 
heaven?  Let  your  conscience  answer.  Now,  if  the  opinions  of 
neither  the  one  nor  the  other  of  these  denominations  are  sufficient 
to  exclude  a  man  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  then  neither  are  the 
opinions  of  the  whole,  provided  they  were  concentrated  in  one 
man.  Let  us  then  suppose  Lewellyn  Jones,  to  be  this  man.  In 
sentiment  he  is  a  Calvinist — he  denies  infant  baptism  and  free  com- 
munion— and  contends  that  none  ought  to  preach  the  gospel  but 
those  who  can  prove  their  ministerial  authority  in  a  direct  line 
from  Christ; — through  the  apostolical  church — through  the  church 
of  Rome — and  through  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  You,  I 
suppose,  would  say,  that  he  is  not  to  be  excluded  the  Methodist 
(that  is  to  say,  the  militant)  Church;  because  of  the  peculiarity  of 
his  sentiments.  Is  this  the  way  you  argue?  Or,  is  this  the  "free- 
dom" of  which  you  so  often  speak,  and  which,  from  your  course  of 
reasoning,  one  would  think  is  one  of  the  constituent  parts  of  your 
contemplated  change  in  the  government  of  the  Methodist  Church? 
If  so,  what  I  did  in  the  case  of  your  "venerable  father  in  Israel," 
I  conceive  to  have  been  one  of  the  best  acts  of  my  life.  L.  Jones 
may,  or  may  not  be  a  good  man,  and  so  of  I.  Harris,  it  is  not  for 
me  to  say."  Answer; 

1st.  Supposing  it  were  true,  that  L.  Jones,  in  being  "in  senti- 
ment a  Calvinist,"  in  "denying  infant  baptism  and  free  commun- 
ion," and  "contending  that  none  ought  to  preach  the  gospel  but 
those  who  can  prove  their  ministerial  authority  in  a  direct  line  from 
Christ,"  would  thereby  be  guilty  of  a  sin  against  "Methodism," 
while  it  is  acknowledged  he  would  be  guilty  of  no  sin  against  God; 
— still  he  could  not  be  legally  expelled,  even  upon  "Methodist" 
authority,  until  a  law  shall  be  found  in  the  discipline,  saying  mem- 
bers shall  be  expelled  for  being  "Calvinists  in  sentiment,"  for  "de- 
nying infant  baptism,"  &,c.  Is  there  any  such  law  in  the  disci- 
pline? 

The  act  of  "inveighing  against  our  doctrines"  may  be  plead,  but 
there  is  no  "inveighing"  in  the  case:  Mr.  Compton  supposes  L. 
Jones  ought  to  be  expelled  for  being  "in  sentiment  a  Calvinist," 
and  for  "denying  infant  baptism."  But  perhaps  after  a  while  the 
word  "inveighing"  will  be  made  to  signify  denying,  objecting, 
petitioning,  doubting  or  presuming!  Nor  can  he  plead  the  act  of 
"holding  and  disseminating  doctrines  contrary  to  our  articles  of 
religion;"  for,  though  he  supposes  L.  Jones  to  "contend  that  none 
ought  to  preach  the  gospel  but  those  who  can  prove  their  minis- 
terial authority  in  a  direct  line  from  Christ,"  yet  said  Jones  could 
not  be  condemned  on  this  ground,  by  any  law  in  being;  because 


192 


brother  Compton  cannot  put  his  finger  on  one  "article  of  our 
religion"  in  the  discipline,  which  this  sentiment  contradicts.  And 
how  could  L.  Jones  be  expelled,  for  "holding  and  disseminating" 
a  sentiment  which  is  not  mentioned  or  alluded  to  in  any  one  of 
our  articles?  This  same  brother  Compton  appears  to  have  been 
so  long  in  the  habit  of  acting  "without  law,"  in  his  administration, 
that  he  probably  begins  to  imagine  he  has  a  right  to  do  so;  and  that 
"true  friends  of  old  Methodism"  ought  not  to  be  restrained  and 
hampered  with  legal  rules  and  provisions. 

2d.  It  is  matter  of  public  record,  that  Mr.  Wesley  received  Cal- 
vinists  into  his  societies  in  England,  and  openly  disavowed  the 
practice  and  the  principles,  of  expelling  any  "merely  for  their  opin- 
ions." I  appeal  to  the  case  of  Mr.  Cennick  and  other  members 
at  Kingswood.  After  Mr.  Wesley  had  read  several  of  them  out  of 
society,  for  various  crimes  which  he  alleged  against  them,  that  they 
had  "belied  and  slandered  Mr.  John  and  Charles  Wesley,"  that 
"they  had  been  guilty  of  tale-bearing,  back-biting,  and  evil  speak- 
ing, dissembing,  lying  and  slandering."  T — B — replied,  "it  is  our 
holding  election,  is  the  true  cause  of  your  separating  from  us."  "I 
answered,"  says  Mr.  Wesley,  "you  know  in  your  conscience  it  is 
not.  There  are  several  predestinarians  in  our  societies  both  at 
London  and  Bristol:  nor  did  I  ever  yet  put  any  one  out  of  either, 
because  he  held  that  opinion."  See  "the  works  of  the  Rev.  John 
Wesley,"  volume  1,  page  339,  340.  Now  as  Mr.  Compton  and 
"all"  his  "fraternity"  take  pleasure  in  announcing  it  "from  New 
England  to  New  Orleans,"  that  they  are  all  good  old  "Wesleyan 
Methodists,"  why  should  poor  "Calvinists"  meet  with  so  much 
worse  treatment  in  their  "Episcopal  Church,'"  than  they  did  in  Mr. 
Wesley's  "United  Societies?" 

3d.  BrotherCompton  appears  to  be  agreat  advocatefor  "free  com- 
munion." Suppose  on  one  day,  he  should  solemnly  invite  our  Baptist 
brethren  to  the  Lord's  table,  who  "deny"  this  sentiment;  and  on  the 
next  day  expel  several  Methodists  for  holding  the  Baptist  sentiment 
on  the  subject;  ought  he  not  on  the  third  day,  upon  his  own  princi- 
ples, to  admit  those  expelled  Methodists  back  to  the  communion 
table,  who  are  owned  to  be  no  more  disqualified  for  it,  than  the 
Baptist  brethren  whom  he  invited?  Ought  he  not  to  receive  those 
brethren  back  to  the  "communion"  whose  expulsion  he  "conceives 
to  have  been  one  of  the  best  acts  of  his  life?"  Suppose  he  should 
say,  you  Presbyterians,  who  are  Calvinists,  we  invite  to  our  "free 
communion,"  you  Baptists,  who  "deny  infant  baptism,"  we  also 
invite;  you  Episcopalians,  who  contend  for  an  uninterrupted  suc- 
cession in  the  ministry,  we  likewise  invite:  but  if  after  the  service 
is  over,  we  find  any  of  "our  people,"  who  agree  with  any  of  you  in 
sentiment,  we  will  immediately  expel  them  from  the  church;  and 
they  shall  have  no  more  communion  with  us  "without  confession, 
contrition,  and  proper  trial." 

4th.  "The  plain  English  of  this  is,  that  no  person  ought  to  be 
excluded  from  the  Methodist  (which  you  are  pleased  to  call  the 
militant)  church,  unless  he  be  guilty  of  something  that  would  ex- 
clude him  the  kingdom  of  heaven."    The  plain  English  of  the 


193 


matter  is  this,  brother  Compton: — the  church  is  under  law  to  Christ, 
or  she  is  not — her  members  are  to  be  governed  by  his  law,  or  they 
are  not;  if  they  are,  then,  as  the  subjects  of  his  government,  they, 
in  their  christian  character,  and  church  membership,  must  stand  or 
fall  by  his  law,  and  by  that  alone;  if  they  are  not  under  law  to 
Christ,  then  please  to  tell  me,  how  Christ  lost  his  authority,  and  by 
what  means  an  usurper  has  got  into  the  seat  of  Majesty?  If 
Christ's  government  cannot  protect  his  own  faithful  subjects,  while 
they  obey  his  laws,  this  must  result  from  one  of  two  causes, — either 
that  his  government  was  originally  defective,  or  that  its  salutary  in- 
fluence is  supplanted  by  an  usurped  administration.  You  may 
adopt  which  alternative  you  please;  and  if  you  reject  both,  you  will 
be  so  good  as  to  point  out  a  third.  Do  not  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States  consider  themselves  protected  from  condemnation 
and  banishment,  so  long  as  they  continue  obedient  to  the  laws  of 
our  government?  And  have  not  the  subjects  of  our  Saviour's  gov- 
ernment a  right  to  expect  equal  protection,  while  they  continue 
obedient  to  his  laws?  Or  will  you  say,  that  the  act  of  expulsion 
did  not  expel  the  Granville  brethren  from  the  church  of  Christ  at 
all,  but  only  from  the  "Methodist  Episcopal  Church?"  This  seems 
to  be  twice  intimated  in  your  reply  to  I.  Harris;  for  you  seem  quite 
unwilling  that  the  Methodist  should  be  called  "the  militant  church." 
Do  you  mean,  then,  that  she  is  the  church  triumphant,  or  that  she 
is  not  the  church  of  Christ  at  all?  Your  only  evasion  must  be,  that 
she  is  a  part  of  the  church  of  Christ;  and  that  the  intention  was 
not  to  expel  those  brethren  from  "the  church  militant,"  but  only 
to  expel  them  from  apart  of  the  church  of  Christ,  that  they  might 
go  to  another  part  of  it:  if  so,  you  own  they  stand  in  the  same  re- 
lation to  Jesus  Christ,  and  to  his  church,  in  which  they  stood  be- 
fore. I  entirely  concur  in  this  sentiment;  because  I  believe  they 
were  expelled  in  defiance  of  the  Saviour's  laws,  and  therefore,  in 
reality  they  stand  related  to  him  and  to  his  government,  as  they  did 
before. 

But  Mr.  Compton  meant  expulsion  from  the  church  of  Christ,  in 
the  full  sense;  and  he  believes  all  reformers  ought  to  share  the  same 
fate:  for  thus  he  speaks:  "I  think  it  very  advantageous  to  Method- 
ism, that  those  who  are  dividing  our  Zion  against  herself,  should 
be  traced  out  and  exposed  in  all  their  ramifications,  both  as  it  re- 
lates to  themselves,  and  to  those  with  whom  they  are  connected  in 
the  great  work  of  revolutionizing  the  government  of  the  church. 
I  will  suppose  a  case,  C.  is  found  carrying  off  the  body  of  a  mur- 
dered man,  upon  examination,  it  is  ascertained  that  A.  caught  the 
deceased  and  held  him  fast,  that  B.  threw  him  down,  and  that  C. 
stabbed  him  through  the  heart.  They  are  all  tried,  and  being  found 
accessary  to  the  man's  death,  are  all  brought  in  guilty,  and  must  all 
die.    In  vain  A.  pleads  that  he  only  caught  and  held  the  deceased, 
and  B.  that  he  only  threw  him  down;  the  law  says  that  they  shall 
die.    But  Ivey  Harris  asks,  "whether  it  is  just  to  name  what  B.  and 
C.  did  on  the  trial  of  A.  and  so  try  to  tranfer  their  guilt  to  him," 
who  perhaps  may  say  that  he  had  no  idea  that  matters  would  have 
been  carried  so  far.    "But  the  law  says  that  he  must  die." 


194 


From  this  illustration,  it  is  plain  that  Mr.  Compton  meant  expul- 
sion from  the  church  of  Christ,  as  fully  as  banishment  would  be 
expulsion  from  the  United  States,  or  even  as  a  public  execution 
would  be  expulsion  from  the  protection  and  privileges  of  our  gov- 
ernment. For  "the  law  says  that  they  shall  die." — "The  law  says 
that  he  must  die."  Strange!  that  his  mouth  should  be  so  full  of 
legality — "the  law  says" — "the  law  says" — after  his  perfectly  law- 
less career,  and  that  of  his  "fraternity,"  in  condemning  our  Gran- 
ville reformers,  in  committee,  in  quarterly  conference,  and  in  the 
annual  conference,  through  "all  their  ramifications."  How  he  in- 
tends his  illustration  to  apply  to  the  reformers,  we  may  be  able  to 
ascertain.  He  seems  to  consider  them,  some  how,  as  moral  mur- 
derers. By  the  "murdered  man,"  he  may  probably  mean  episco- 
pacy; for  this  is  sometimes  represented  as  the  nerves  and  vitals  of 
the  church;  and  when  our  opponents  speak  of  the  church  being  in 
danger,  their  real  meaning  is,  that  the  absolute  power  of  the  hier- 
archy is  in  danger.  It  is  supposed  then,  that  at  some  time  or  other, 
this  formidable  power  will  be  slain,  and  that  "C."  will  be  "found 
carrying  off  the  body"  of  the  "murdered  man."  "Upon  examina- 
tion" it  will  be  "ascertained  that  A.  caught  the  deceased  and  held 
him  fast,  that  B.  threw  him  down,  and  that  C.  stabbed  him  through 
the  heart.  The  law  says  that  they  shall  die."  Mr.  Compton  will 
be  pleased,  however,  to  wait  till  the  law  is  enacted,  before  he  at- 
tempts to  put  it  in  execution.  Suppose  some  President  of  the  Unit- 
ed States  should  succeed  to  establish  himself  in  the  presidential  chair 
for  life,  and  should  have  a  law  enacted  forbidding  the  citizens  on 
pain  of  imprisonment,  ba7iishment  or  death,  to  "inveigh"  against 
the  government,  either  by  objecting  to  any  of  its  laws,  by  petitioning 
for  their  repeal,  or  using  any  argument,  through  the  medium  of 
speech  or  of  the  press,  to  evince  their  impropriety;  would  not  the 
American  people  find  this  to  be  a  ugag  law,"  a  hundred  degrees 
worse  than  any  they  have  ever  yet  had  to  complain  of?  And  in  what 
would  such  a  laic  differ  from  our  present  ugag  law"  in  the  disci- 
pline, on  supposition  that  it  is  to  be  so  explained  as  to  sanction  tlie 
administration  of  Benton  Field?  It  loill  require  all  the  clerical 
talents  of  old  Virginia  to  point  out  any  difference,  excepting  that 
the  latter  only  involves  the  church  penalty  of  expulsion:  in  princi- 
ple, they  would  be  precisely  the  same;  and  this  principle,  with  a  suf- 
ficient enlargement  of  power  in  the  hierarchy,  would  soon  bring  the 
christian  community  again  under  the  penalties  of  corporeal  punish- 
ment. Yet  this  tyranny  is  sanctioned  by  the  Virginia  annual  con- 
ference! 

An  orthodox  brother  took  an  early  opportunity  to  give  the  public 
the  following  information:  u  We  have  had  a  fine  conference,  and 
the  appointments  of  tlie  preachers  you  will  receive  in  a  few  days. 
Three  bishops  attended — bishop  M'Kendree,  whose  health  and 
spirits  are  better  than  usual,  and  bishops  Roberts  and  Soule,  who  are 
in  gooa  health."  Why,  herein  is  a  marvellous  thing,  that  the  preacher 
in  cliarge  had  several  members  expelled  from  the  church,  in  defiance 


195 


of  all  laws,  both  human  and  divine,  and  yet  "a  fine  conference" 
with  "three  bishops"  at  its  head,  and  could  not  discover  this  to  be 
"mal-administration."  The  next  number  of  the  Christian  Advocate 
(the  21th)  contains  a  more  full  account,  in  which  we  are  informed 
"the  venerable  bishop  J\PKendree  addressed  them  in  a  very  affectionate 
and  feeling  manner — He  then  concluded  with  an  exhortation  to 
holiness,"  upon  which  the  conference  aftericards  "adopted  the  fol- 
lowing resolution." — "  That  the  doctrine  of  holiness  recommended 
by  our  discipline,  and  forcibly  impressed  in  the  address  of  the 
bishop,  be  duly  weighed  and  enforced  by  the  members  of  this  con- 
ference." 

It  is  hoped,  "the  members  of  this  conference,"  in  "duly  weighing" 
the  subject  of  christian  holiness,  will  try  to  acquire  just  views  of  its 
nature  and  extent;  and  that  while  they  justly  expostulate  with  those 
who  oppose  the  doctrine,  as  being  advocates  for  sin,  they  will  not 
forget  to  raise  a  warning  voice  against  those  who  make  professions 
of  holiness  and  sanctification  as  a  cloak  for  their  sins.  By  what 
tests  is  it  to  be  ascertained  that  a  man  is  not  sanctified?  They  are 
such  as  the  following:  "He  that  saith  he  is  in  the  light,  and  hateth 
his  brother,  is  in  darkness  even  until  now."  (1.  Johnii.  9.)  "If  a 
man  say,  I  love  God,  and  hateth  his  brother,  he  is  a  liar."  (1.  John 
iv.  20.)  "But,  why  dost  thou  judge  thy  brother?  or  why  dost  thou 
set  at  nought  thy  brother?  For  we  shall  all  stand  before  the  judg- 
ment seat  of  Christ."  (Rom.  xiv.  10.)  "But  Diotrephes  who  loveth 
to  have  the  pre-eminence  among  them,  receiveth  us  not — prating 
against  us  with  malicious  words:  and  not  content  therewith,  neither 
doth  he  himself  receive  tfie  brethren,  and  forbiddeth  them  that  would, 
and  casteth  them  out  of  the  church."  (3.  John,  ix.  10.)  For  a  man 
who  is  in  the  habit  of  such  conduct,  as  is  thus  condemned  by  the 
divine  laws,  to  get  up  in  love-feasts  and  say,  "at  the  last  prayer 
meeting,  or  at  the  last  camp  meeting,  I  was  sanctified,"  is  an  insult 
to  God,  and  to  all  christian  morality.  Alas!,  how  many  thousands 
are  zealous  advocates  for  the  doctrine  of  sanctification,  and  are 
ready  to  fly  into  a  passion  in  defence  of  christian  perfection,  who 
are  merely  jond  of  the  sentiment,  not  because  they  have  a  true  hun- 
gering and  thirst  after  righteousness,  but  because  the  doctrine  is  a 
distinguishing  peculiarity  of  Methodism?  The  doctrine  of  holi- 
ness is  valuable  beyond  expression,  and  may  be  justly  regarded  as 
the  great  consummation  of  Christianity;  but  sectarian  partiality  ap- 
pears to  corrupt  every  thing  it  touches;  and  such  are  the  mysteries  of 
human  nature,  that  it  would  be  no  matter  of  surprise  if  the  time 
should  come,  when  a  man  would  be  ready  to  cut  his  brother's  throat, 
in  defence  of  the  doctrine  of  christian  perfection.  In  what  way  our 
Virginia  brethren  intend  to  "enforce"  the  "doctrine  of  holiness," 
they  have  not  explained:  perhaps  their  conduct  will  hereafter  ex- 
plain it. 

By  what  tests  are  we  to  ascertain  that  a  man  is  sanctified?  They 
are  such  as  the  following:  "Take  my  yoke  upon  you,  (that  is,  the 


196 


law  of  Christ,  and  not  the  yoke  of  "episcopacy")  and  learn  of  me; 
for  I  am  meek  and  lowly  in  heart:  and  ye  shall  find  rest  to  your 
souls."  Matt.  xi.  29.  "Therefore  all  things  whatsoever  ye  would 
that  men  should  do  to  you.  do  ye  even  so  to  them:  for  this  is  the 
law  and  the  prophets."  (And  of  course,  is  christian  perfection.) 
Matt.  vii.  12.  "But  the  wisdom  that  is  from  above  is  first  pure,  then 
peaceable,  gentle,  and  easy  to  be  entreated,  full  of  mercy  and  good 
fruits,  without  partiality,  and  without  hypocrisy."  (James  iii.  17.) 
Let  our  brethren  measure  their  sanctification  by  these  rules,  and 
not  suppose  it  sufficient  merely  to  be  said  in  familiar  conversation, 

at  the  last  camp-meeting  brother  was  sanctified,  or  at  the  last 

prayer-meeting,  sister  was  sanctified.  And  let  them  not  for- 
get to  pray  that  the  general  conference  may  be  sanctified;  that  is, 
that  the  members  of  it,  in  their  official  deliberations,  may  be  entirely 
set  a  part  for  God,  and  not  "reject  the  commandments  of  God, 
that  they  may  keep  their  own  traditions." 

As  to  the  objection  so  repeatedly  and  confidently  urged  against 
reformers  (and  which  has  been  urged  in  the  same  way  through  all 
past  ages)  that  they  intend  to  injure  and  destroy  the  church,  we 
reply:  it  is  our  design  to  guard  and  benefit  the  church,  by  oppos- 
ing the  progress  of  that  clerical  dominion  which  has  been  injuri- 
ous and  ruinous  to  her,  for  more  than  a  thousand  years.  When 
we  make  a  stand  against  the  high  career  of  ecclesiastical  episcopa- 
cy, it  is  fondly  pretended  we  oppose  the  progress  of  the  christian 
religion,  and  are  secret  friends  to  infidelity;  whereas  the  truth  is, 
that  the  sovereign  power  of  the  priest-hood,  which  we  oppose,  has 
greatly  promoted  infidelity  in  all  ages,  and  has  furnished  deists 
with  a  more  plausible  and  influential  argument  against  Christianity, 
than  they  otherwise  could  have  ever  got  hold  of:  for  they  appeal  to 
the  conduct  of  "the  clergy,"  in  proof  that  Jesus  Christ  has  author- 
ized a  succession  of  men  to  establish  and  perpetuate  a  tyrannical 
hierarchy  over  the  human  understanding,  and  the  human  con- 
science. But  any  set  of  men,  who  practically  and  officially  say, 
the  Lord  Jesus  has  authorized  them  to  be  tyrants,  slander  and  blas- 
pheme his  gracious  character;  and  the  only  way  to  repel  the  infi- 
del argument,  is  to  demonstrate  that  in  all  ages,  tyrannical  hierar- 
chists  have  been  usurpers,  who  have  assumed  and  maintained  their 
unholy  power,  in  defiance  of  the  Saviour's  laws. 

A  keen-eyed  opponent  will  be  likely  to  perceive,  with  terrible  indig- 
nation, that  we  are  waging  war  against  "the  episcopacy!"  Yes:  this 
absolute  sovereignty  is  the  centre  point  of  our  opposition;  while  it 
stands,  in  its  present  mighty  energy,  all  reformation  is  hopeless,  and  an 
increase  of  moral  darkness  and  corruption  will  be  inevitable.  We 
have  no  quarrel  with  our  present  bishops:  we  believe  them  to  be  good 
men;  and  that  none  of  them  have  become  by  many  degrees,  so  corrupt- 
ed by  this  same  great  "Episcopacy,"  as  many  of  their  tame  under- 
lings and  dependents  have  become. 

If  our  brethren  suppose  any  thing  in  this  communication  is  too 
sharp,  the  author,  confident  that  nothing  here  expressed  needs  an 
apology,  requests  of  them  to  recollect  what  has  been  the  occasion 
of  this  paper;  and  then  to  read  Tit.  i.  13,  14.    "This  witness  is 


197 


true.  Wherefore  rebuke  them  sharply,  that  they  may  be  sound  in 
the  faith:  (and  the  faith  is  to  be  found  in  the  Bible,  not  in  ecclesi- 
astical canons)  not  giving  heed  to  Jewish  (or  Gentile)  fables,  and 
commandments  of  men,  that  turn  from  the  truth."  "For  the 
time  will  come  when  they  will  not  endure  sound  doctrine;  and  they 
shall  turn  away  their  ears  from  the  truth,  and  shall  be  turned  unto 
fables."    2  Tim.  iv.  3,  4.  A  Virginia  Methodist. 

April,  1827. 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 

Rev'd.  Dennis  B.  Dorsey's  case,  fyc.  before  the  Baltimore  Annual 

Conference. 

LETTER  FROM  REV.  DENNIS  B.  DORSEY  TO  VINDEX. 

Rev.  and  Dear  Sir> 

I  have  had  the  pleasure  of  reading  your  affectionate  communi- 
cation, addressed  to  me  through  the  medium  of  the  Mutual  Rights, 
and  now  enjoy  the  equal  pleasure  of  returning  you,  through  the 
same  medium,  my  grateful  acknowledgments  for  the  solicitude  you 
evince  in  my  behalf.  In  the  mean  time  I  am  not  unmindful  of  the 
great  principles,  on  which  this  matter  is  predicated,  of  which  I 
presume  you  are  an  advocate.  And  as  you  put  several  interroga- 
tories relative  to  the  case,  for  your  personal  information,  I  will  give 
you  a  glance  at  the  whole  affair.  I  am  the  more  inclined  to  this 
than  to  entire  silence,  under  existing  circumstances,  for  two  rea- 
sons. The  first  regards  the  reputation  of  our  conference,  which 
is  as  liable  to  be  tarnished  as  my  own;  and  the  second  is  grounded 
on  the  special  regard  which  I  must  necessarily  feel  for  my  own 
character,  as  a  christian,  and  a  minister  of  the  gospel.  This  brief 
history  shall  be  given  from  my  best  recollections,  and  the  least  ex- 
ceptionable means  of  information.  If  there  should  be  any  apparent 
mis-statement,  I  hope  no  brother  will  attribute  it  to  design;  and 
that  if  any  one  be  prepared  to  correct  it,  he  will  do  so  through  this 
public  medium,  before  he  undertake  to  contradict  or  criminate  in  a 
private  manner. 

Some  time  last  February,  I  wrote  a  few  lines  to  a  friend,  Mr. 
Hugh  M.  Sharp,  in  which  I  gave  him  information  "of  a  work  on 
church  government,  publishing  in  Baltimore,  by  a  committee  of 
Methodist  preachers  and  members,  exposing  to  open  view,  some 
of  the  errors  in  our  government  and  administration."  I  also  in- 
formed him  that  the  work  "was  a  very  satisfactory  one,  well  worth 
his  attention;"  that  I  had  "taken  it  more  than  eighteen  months, 
and  was  well  pleased  with  it;"  that  it  contained  so  many  pages, 
and  came  at  so  much  per  year;  that  several  in  that  part  took  it, 
and  were  well  pleased  with  it;  and,  finally,  requested  him  to  let  me 
know  immediately,  if  he  desired  to  have  the  work,  and  to  inquire 
26 


198 


of  a  brother,  whom  1  named,  whether  he  would  take  it  also.  In  con- 
clusion, I  remarked  to  him,  "You  need  not  mention  this  to  any  other 
person,  if  you  please."  But  when  Mr.  Robert  Minshall,  the  preacher 
in  charge  of  Huntingdon  circuit,  came  round,  my  friend  Sharp 
betrayed  me,  by  giving  him  my  letter  to  read.  Mr.  Minshall  then, 
according  to  his  own  telling  in  conference,  asked  him  for  a  copy 
of  the  letter,  to  which  he  replied,  that  he  might  have  the  original, 
as  it  was  of  no  use  to  him. 

About  this  time  there  was  a  letter  written  by  Mr.  Minshall,  to  Mr. 
David  Steele,  giving  him  information,  that  I  was  actively  engaged 
in  circulating  the  Mutual  Rights,  and  probably  censuring  me  for 
such  conduct.  This  information  was  communicated  to  Mr.  John 
Davis,  who,  in  his  turn  reported  it  again,  until,  finally,  it  was 
brought  before  the  late  Annual  Conference,  first  in  the  form  of  an 
objection,  and  then  as  a  charge. 

After  the  commencement  of  the  conference,  I  had  an  interview 
with  Mr.  Davis,  who  gave  me  an  assurance,  that  as  I  would  give 
him  no  satisfaction  in  his  interrogatives,  he  could  not  pass  over  it 
on  the  examination  of  my  character.  Accordingly,  when  my  name 
was  called,  in  the  examination  of  characters,  Mr.  S.  G.  Roszel 
arose  and  made  some  objections,  stating,  as  I  was  informed  by 
members  of  conference,  (for  I  was  too  unwell  to  be  present,)  that 
I  had  been  away  from  my  circuit  during  the  last  year,  under  the 
pretence  of  being  afflicted,  but  had  been  travelling  extensively,  cir- 
culating a  work  derogatory  to  the  interests  of  the  church.  My 
case  was  then  postponed  until  I  could  be  present. 

The  following,  or  second  day  after,  I  was  present,  when  my 
name  was  called,  and  the  inquiry  instituted,  whether  there  was  any 
thing  against  my  character:  certain  members  of  the  conference  re- 
plied that  there  icas,  but  the  brother  who  had  made  the  objection 
was  absent.  Mr.  Roszel  being  sent  for,  came  in  and  stated  his 
objection,  on  the  ground  above  mentioned.  This  led  to  reference 
for  information,  and  Messrs.  Steele  and  Minshall  were  referred  to 
as  informants.  My  letter  was  now  produced  by  Mr.  Minshall, 
who  stated  how  he  obtained  it,  and  intimated  that  it  had  now  acci- 
dentally come  in  place,  as  he  thought  when  he  obtained  it,  might 
sometime  be  the  case.  The  letter  was  then  read,  and  the  presi- 
dent, Mr.  Soule,  remarked,  that  if  I  had  any  thing  to  say  in  reply, 
I  was  now  at  liberty  to  speak  for  myself.  As  I  saw  no  formal  charge, 
I  had  nothing  to  say,  only  to  acknowledge  the  letter  read  to  be 
my  own  production.  I  then  retired,  and  after  considerable  deliber- 
ation on  the  subject,  the  case  was  decided.  Some  brother,  in  pass- 
ing out  of  the  conference,  remarked  to  me  that  I  could  now  go  in, 
which  left  me  under  the  impression  that  my  character  had  passed. 
I  then  went  in  and  remained  until  conference  adjourned;  but  heard 
no  official  announcement  of  the  decision,  until  the  next  day.  I 
learned  however,  in  the  mean  time,  the  nature  of  the  decision,  in 
part,  but  could  find  no  one  to  give  it  me  in  full. 

The  next  morning  when  the  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was 
read,  there  was  a  foimal  charge  recorded,  which  was  "for  having 
been  actively  engaged  in  the  circulation  of  an  improper  periodical 


I})!) 


work.  The  president  then  announced  to  me  from  the  chair,  that 
the  decision  of  the  conference  in  my  case  was,  "that  my  character 
should  pass,  upon  my  being  admonished  by  the  president;  and  promis- 
ing the  conference  that  1  would  desist  from  taking  any  agency  in 
spreading  or  supporting  any  publications  in  opposition  to  our  disci- 
pline or  government.^  The  admonition  was  then  given  from  the 
chair;  after  I  had  signified  my  disposition  to  submit  to  it,  for  the 
sake  of  brethren's  consciences.  I  was  then  required  to  give  a 
pledge  that  I  would  comply  with  the  latter  part  of  the  resolution; 
which  I  refused  to  do,  while  the  resolution  remained  in  its  unquali- 
fied form.  I  then  replied  to  all  the  important  items  of  the  ad- 
monition, and  gave  my  reasons  for  not  complying  with  the  latter 
part  of  the  resolution.    The  following  is  the  substance: 

Mr.  President, 

With  you  I  admit  the  importance  of  clearly  ascertaining  that  we 
have  found  the  truth,  before  we  undertake  to  communicate  it;  and 
that  when  we  do  communicate  it,  we  ought  to  be  careful  to  culti- 
vate the  spirit  of  Christianity,  lest  it  be  attended  with  greater  in- 
jury than  good,  to  our  fellow  men.  These  considerations  have 
governed  me  throughout:  and  God  forbid  that  I  should  ever  depart 
from  them! 

As  it  regards  the  allusion  to  my  promises  before  I  received  ordi- 
nation, to  be  obedient  to  my  superiors,  and  not  to  "mend  our  rules 
but  to  keep  them,"*  I  reply,  that  I  regret  exceedingly,  that  when 
I  made  such  promises,  I  was  not  better  qualified  to  judge  of  our 
discipline  and  government.  I  was  young,  inexperienced  and  un- 
informed. I  perceived  no  errors  in  either  of  these.  But,  Sir,  if  I 
now  had  to  pass  that  examination,  I  should  certainly  be  strict  in 
qualifying  my  promises,  as  I  do  believe  there  are  rules  of  Disci- 
pline, as  well  as  practices  in  our  administration,  which  ought  to  be 
modified. 

I  do,  Sir,  as  firmly  and  fully  believe  in  our  doctrines,  generally,  as 
any  brother;  and  have  endeavoured  since  I  became  a  member  of 
our  church,  to  obey  them:  nor  do  I  now  feel  any  abatement  of  my 
purpose,  to  persevere  in  this  path  of  duty  to  the  end,  by  the  Grace 
of  God  assisting  me.  I  have  uniformly  recommended  our  disci- 
pline to  others,  as  well  as  laboured  to  conform  to  its  mandates  my- 
self: and  in  this  course  too,  I  feel  inclined  to  persevere,  until  some 
better  modification  of  them  shall  be  introduced  by  the  proper 
authority  of  the  church,  or  until  they  be  repealed.  And  as  to  the  grand 
fundamentals  of  our  government,  (meaning  the  itinerant  operations,) 
no  member  of  this  conference  feels  more  disposed  to  support  them 
than  I  do.  But,  Sir,  believing  as  I  do,  that  there  are  some  of  the 
minutiae  of  our  discipline  and  government,  which  could  be  modi- 
fied to  advantage,  I  wish  to  enjoy  the  privilege  of  examining  the 
subject,  by  reading  ecclesiastical  history,  the  Mutual  Rights,  or 
any  thing  else  which  will  afford  me  the  necessary  information. 
And  when  I  am  fully  convinced  that  I  have  obtained  a  knowledge 

*Mr.  Dorsey  neither  broke  the  "rules"  nor  mended  them. — Eds. 


200 


of  the  truth,  I  desire  the  privilege  of  communicating  it  in  the  best 
possible  manner  to  the  church  and  the  world,  either  verbally  or 
otherwise.  And,  although  I  should  rejoice  to  have  the  sanction  of 
this  conference,  in  so  doing,  yet  if  it  cannot  be  obtained,  I  must 
beg  the  privilege  of  pursuing  the  course  which  my  judgment  and 
conscience  dictate. 

You  admit  that  the  preachers  have  a  right  to  read  and  examine 
the  Mutual  Rights,  or  any  thing  they  please.  And  is  it  not  ad- 
mitted, that  they  have  the  same  right  to  communicate  to  others, 
what  they  learn?  Are  we  to  retain  our  information,  and  neither 
speak  nor  write  about  it?  No,  Sir,  I  cannot  suffer  any  man,  or 
body  of  men,  to  trammel  my  rational  faculties,  in  their  search  for 
truth;  nor  to  restrain  them  from  promulgating  it  when  obtained: 
and  I  now  reserve  to  myself  the  entire  privilege  of  doing  so,  either 
verbally,  or  in  any  other  manner  I  judge  most  expedient. 

I  have  read  the  Mutual  Rights,  Sir,  for  myself,  and  think 
highly  of  the  work,  and  recommend  it  to  every  member  of  this 
conference. 

The  bishops  themselves  read  it, — the  preachers  read  it, — the  book 
agents  read  it,  and  exchange  the  Methodist  Magazine  for  it; — and 
will  any  one  say,  that  the  people  have  no  right  to  read  it?  With- 
out an  act  of  reason,  my  intelligence  itself  on  the  first  blush 
of  the  subject,  forces  this  language  upon  me: — If  bishops, 
preachers,  and  book  agents  read  this  work  with  impunity,  then  all 
the  members  of  our  church,  ought  to  enjoy  the  same  privilege. 
But  I  must  come  to  the  conclusion  and  application  of  this  argu- 
ment.— If  the  members  have  as  good  a  right  to  read  the  Mutual 
Rights,  as  the  ministry,  (which  all  must  admit,  or  else  deny  that 
they  are  free,)  and  if  the  ministers  undoubtedly  have  this  right,  as 
has  been  admitted  on  this  floor,  by  bishops  and  others,  then  there 
is  no  argument  to  set  aside  the  consequence,  that  it  is  the  right  of 
any  preacher  to  recommend  the  work  to  the  people,  if  he  judge  it 
would  be  profitable  to  them.  [And  every  attempt  to  inflict  punish- 
ment on  a  preacher  for  recommending  it  to  the  people,  is  an  abso- 
lute, though  indirect,  declaration,  that  they  are  not  at  liberty  to 
read  and  examine  for  themselves.]  And  if  it  be  a  preacher's  right, 
how  can  you  punish  me  for  so  doing?  Yet  I  have  been  punished 
with  an  admonition,  for  recommending  the  Mutual  Rights  to  one  or 
two  members;  for  this  is  all  the  proof  you  had  against  me. 

After  this  I  retired,  and  the  sense  of  the  conference  was  taken, 
whether  my  reply  was  satisfactory,  and  the  vote  was  given  in  the 
negative.  I  was  again  called  in  and  interrogated  on  the  subject; 
but  replied  as  before,  in  my  own  language,  qualifying  my  promises, 
and  yielding  so  far  as  I  could,  without  sacrificing  the  clearest  dic- 
tates of  my  judgment  and  conscience.  I  again  retired,  and  as  I 
was  informed,  the  question,  "whether  my  character  pass,"  was 
again  put  to  the  conference,  and  answered  by  a  vote  in  the  nega- 
tive. It  was  then  "moved,  that  the  case  be  postponed  till  to-mor- 
row." 

The  next  day  the  case  was  again  resumed,  and  I  was  once  more 
interrogated.    I  replied  in  substance  as  follows: 


201 


Mr.  President, 

Upon  a  candid  re-examination  of  the  subject,  I  am  prepared  to 
reiterate  the  remarks  which  I  offered  yesterday,  relative  to  my  dis- 
position to  render  a  respectful  obedience  to  our  discipline  and 
government.  But  I  request  the  conference,  if  they  please,  to  fa- 
vour me  with  the  rule  of  discipline  on  which  I  have  been  charged, 
tried  and  punished,  that  I  may  be  better  prepared  to  conclude  how 
to  shape  my  course.  (No  law  was  given.)  If  there  be  any  rule, 
and  you  have  proceeded  according  to  it.  then  I  am  subject  to  no 
further  penalty,  unless  I  can  be  punished  twice  for  the  same  of- 
fence. 

It  has  just  now  been  suggested  to  me,  by  a  brother  at  my  left 
hand,  that  there  is  a  law  of  the  general  conference,  passed  at  their 
last  session,  requiring  our  preachers  not  to  become  agents  for 
other  booksellers,  &c.  Now,  supposing  this  law  to  apply  to  the 
case  in  hand,  (which  we  believe  it  will  not,)  /  knew  nothing  about 
its  existence  until  half  an  hour  ago;  and  how  then  could  I  keep  or 
break  it?  It  is  not  in  our  discipline.  A  law  must  be  promulgated 
before  it  can  be  in  force:  for,  "where  there  is  no  law,  there"  can 
be  "no  transgression."  How  then  can  I  be  punished  for  the  trans- 
gression of  that  law?  I  feel  myself  as  much  bound  as  any  member 
of  this  conference,  to  keep  the  laws  of  the  general  conference, 
until  they  shall  be  amended  or  repealed.  When  I  violate  any  one 
of  those  laws,  I  am  amenable  at  this  tribunal;  and,  if  found  guilty, 
subject  to  punishment  and  am  willing  to  submit  to  it.  But  I  can- 
not be  punished  now  for  an  offence  which  I  may  or  may  not  commit 
hereafter,  without  a  violation  of  justice. 

Moreover,  it  has  been  suggested,  (by  the  president,)  that  an 
"annual  conference  has  authority  to  make  rules  and  regulations 
for  its  own  members."  Admitted.  Rules  and  regulations  are  not 
laws  to  regulate  moral  conduct,  I  presume.  This  conference  is 
now  sitting  in  an  executive,  or  legislative  capacity.  If  the  former, 
then  not  the  latter;  and  if  the  latter,  not  the  former.  If  you  are 
sitting  in  an  executive  capacity,  how  can  you  enact  laws  for  your- 
selves to  execute?  If  in  a  legislative  capacity,  how  can  you  exe- 
cute your  own  laws?  Unless  you  prove  that  these  two  powers 
should  be  united  in  one  body;  which  would  astonish  my  understand- 
ing, and  form  a  monstrous  anomaly  in  ecclesiastical  government, 
in  this  country. 

But  if  this  conference  had  the  power  both  to  enact  laws  for  the 
regulation  of  the  moral  characters  of  its  members,  and  to  execute 
such  laws,  when  enacted,  surely  none  would  argue  that  you  had 
authority  to  punish  one  of  your  members  for  a  breach  of  a  law  be- 
fore it  is  broken,  or  even  enacted!  And  when  was  the  law  enacted, 
which  prohibits  any  of  your  body  from  recommending  the  Mutual 
Rights? — the  supposed  offence  for  which  I  have  suffered  the  pun- 
ishment of  an  admonition. 

I  might  easily  say  much  more  on  the  subject:  for  it  is  one  of  the 
deepest  moment  to  me:  but  suffer  me  to  close  my  remarks,  by  re- 
ferring brethren  to  the  many  hard  things  which  some  of  them  have 
said  on  this  floor:  and  also,  to  what  some  of  them  have  written  and 


202 


published,  in  opposition  to  certain  parts  of  our  discipline  and  gov- 
ernment; and  let  me  request  them  to  refer  to  those  things,  when 
they  shall  give  their  vote  in  this  case. 

I  now  retired  again;  and  Mr.  Roszel  offered  the  following  mo- 
tion: "moved  that  the  character  of  brother  Dorsey  pass,  upan  his 
being  reproved  by  the  president,  for  his  contumacy  in  resisting  the 
authority  of  the  conference."  This  motion  did  not  prevail.  The 
following  motion  was  then  offered  by  Mr.  Job  Guest,  but  written 
as  the  secretary  says,  by  Mr.  F.  S.  Evans:,  'Moved  and  seconded, 
that  the  bishops  be,  and  hereby  are  requested  not  to  give  Dennis  B. 
Dorsey  an  appointment  for  the  present  year,  and  that  his  name  be  so 
returned  on  the  minutes,  with  the  reasons  assigned  why  he  has  not  an 
appointment;  viz.  his  contumacy  in  regard  to  the  authority  of  the 
conference."  This  motion  was  divided,  and  the  first  and  second 
parts  adopted  separately.  The  resolution  being  read  to  me,  when 
called  in,  I  requested  a  transcript  from  the  journal,  of  all  the  pro- 
ceedings in  the  case;  and  signified  a  probability  of  my  appealing  to 
the  general  conference  against  their  decisions.  My  request  was 
laid  over,  however,  till  the  next  day. 

When  the  case  was  called  up  on  the  following  day,  on  motion 
of  Mr.  Joshua  Wells,  it  was  resolved,  that  the  last  resolution 
passed  on  yesterday,  relative  to  the  return  of  the  name  on  the 
minutes,  be  amended,  and  "that  the  words,  'with  the  reasons  as- 
signed why  he  has  not  an  appointment;  viz.  his  contumacy  in  regard 
to  the  authority  of  the  conference,'  be  retained  on  the  journal,  but  not 
published  on  the  minutes."  This  motion  was  adopted. — The  same 
day,  as  I  could  not  be  present  on  account  of  bodily  indisposition, 
I  wrote  to  the  conference,  informing  them  of  my  determination  to 
appeal  to  the  general  conference,  and  requested  them  to  pass  a  reso- 
lution, that  this  appeal  be  inserted  in  the  minutes  along  with  their 
former  resolution.  In  that  letter  I  renewed  my  request  for  a  tran- 
script from  the  journals.  Mr.  Robert  Cadden  then  moved,  that 
my  '•'request  be  not  granted;"  The  secretary,  Mr.  Waugh,  and 
others,  made  some  remarks  on  the  impropriety  of  my  obtaining 
such  a  document,  without  some  restraint  not  to  publish  it  until  the 
general  conference.  This  motion  was  lost.  After  this,  it  was,  on 
motion  of  Mr.  Roszel,  "resolved  that"  my  "request  be  granted." 

Thus,  dear  sir,  you  have  an  outline  of  this  afflictive  and  pro- 
tracted trial;  and  you  are  now  left  to  form  your  own  opinion  con- 
cerning the  nature  and  grounds  of  the  charge — the  manner  in 
which  it  was  introduced — the  proofs  by  which  it  was  sustained — 
the  decisions  of  conference  on  the  case — and  my  merit  or  demerit 
of  the  penalties  inflicted. 

Soliciting  an  interest  in  your  petitions  to  the  God  of  all  grace, 
that  I  may  have  that  love  which  "endureth  all  things,"  and  "think- 
eth  no  evil,"  I  subscribe  myself,  dear  brother,  your  fellow  labourer 
in  the  cause  of  religious  liberty,  and  in  the  ministry  of  reconcilia- 
tion. Dennis  B.  Dorsev. 
To  Vindex. 

Baltimore,  May  16th,  1827. 


203 


CHAPTER  XXV. 

A  short  address  to  the  Members  of  the  Baltimore  Annual  Conference 
by  Bartimeus. 

FATHERS  AND  BRETHREN, 

Permit  an  old  friend,  and  an  old  member  of  your  conference,  to 
address  you  in  the  language  of  mildness  and  expostulation.  One 
who  was  brought  out  of  the  kingdom  of  darkness,  by  the  instru- 
mentality of  the  Methodist  ministry,  and  who  has  been  raised  up 
among  you,  as  an  advocate  for  the  pure  doctrines  of  original  Meth- 
odism. One  who,  in  the  twenty-second  year  of  his  age,  being 
ordered  by  the  bishop  far  hence  into  the  wilderness,  was  noticed 
by  a  distinguished  member  of  your  conference,  who,  casting  a 
benevolent  glance  at  the  timid  young  man,  silently  retired  from 
the  busy  scenes  of  the  day,  and  went  from  house  to  house,  to  pro- 
cure a  little  money  from  the  generous  friends  in  Baltimore,  to  aid 
him  through  the  dangers  and  hazards  of  his  western  tour.  A 
member  this,  who  then  stood  so  high  in  your  ranks,  and  in  the 
public  estimation,  that  when  he  had  an  appointment  to  preach, 
his  name  was  previously  announced  from  the  pulpit,  that  the  citi- 
zens might  know  when  they  could  have  an  opportunity  to  hear 
him.  What  distinguished  member  of  your  conference  was  this? 
It  was  no  other  than  that  same  Nicholas  Snethen,  who  is  now 
regarded  as  the  great  troubler  of  Israel.  That  mild,  inoffensive 
man  of  God,  who,  for  more  than  thirty  years,  through  a  variety  of 
trying  circumstances,  has  held  fast  his  righteousness,  and  main- 
tained his  integrity.  Shall  I  forget  thee,  Snethen !  Now  the  shafts 
of  reproach  fly  thick  around;  shall  I  hide  myself,  and  leave  thee 
to  the  pelting  of  the  storm?  I  have  arisen,  thou  knowest,  to  aid 
thee  in  the  mighty  contest,  and  to  share  in  thy  reproach.  I  will 
be  thy  fellow-labourer  through  the  cloudy  and  dark  day,  until  sum- 
mer suns  shall  break  the  dense  vapours  of  the  storm,  and  clear  up 
the  troubled  atmosphere.  Then  like  weather-beaten  and  war-worn 
soldiers,  lifting  our  eyes  to  the  tranquil  stillness  of  the  heavens,  and 
looking  abroad  through  the  surrounding  beauties  of  spiritual  vege- 
tation, we  will  sing  together: — "For  lo!  the  winter  is  past,  the  rain 
is  over  and  gone;  the  flowers  appear  on  the  earth;  the  time  of  sing- 
ing of  birds  is  come,  and  the  voice  of  the  turtle  is  heard  in  our  land; 
the  fig-tree  putteth  forth  her  green  figs,  and  the  vines  with  the  ten- 
der grape  give  a  good  smell." 

You,  my  brethren,  who  are  yet  members  of  the  Baltimore  annual 
conference,  will  forgive  this  involuntary  digression,  this  grateful 
recollection  of  past  events,  and  pleasant  anticipation  of  the  future, 
while  I  solicit  your  attention  to  the  intended  suggestions  of  the 
present  address. 

I  am  not  insensible  of  my  obligations  to  you,  and  have  long  ad- 
mired that  dignity  and  intelligence,  which  have  caused  you  to  hold 
a  distinguished  rank  among  the  annual  conferences  of  the  United 


204 


States.  You  possess  advantages  which  other  conferences  do  not. 
Occupying  a  central  situation,  and  having  easy  access  to  the  first 
sources  of  information,  you  have  it  in  your  power  to  sustain  a  val- 
uable weight  of  influence,  and  to  stand  among  the  most  useful 
bodies  of  men  in  our  nation.  The  principles  of  reform  have  long 
been  in  operation  among  you;  and  you  have  had  ample  means  to 
know  and  appreciate  the  evidence  on  which  they  rest.  I  retain  a 
lively  recollection  of  the  times  and  seasons,  when  an  Emory,  a 
Ryland,  and  a  Griffith,  made  a  noble  stand  on  your  floor;  and  when 
other  intelligent  brethren  with  them,  plead  the  cause  of  liberty, 
against  the  dangerous  accumulations  of  ecclesiastical  power. 
Whence  is  it,  then,  that  in  your  late  session,  you  have  laid  an  em- 
bargo upon  the  Mutual  Rights?  Is  Emory  gone  from  among  you? 
Is  the  voice  of  Ryland  no  more  heard?  Has  Griffith  retired  to  the 
mournful  solitudes  of  discouraged  silence?  Poes  modest  Hanson 
still  refuse  to  open  his  mouth?  And  have  Waugh  and  Davis  found 
out,  that  truth  reaches  too  deep,  to  be  safely  followed  in  all  its  con- 
nections? Does  the  thunder  of  S.  G.  R.  still  terrify  the  rising  min- 
istry? And  have  your  young  men  "stipulated"  to  enjoy  the  conso- 
lations of  passive  obedience  and  non-resistance?  Whence  is  it, 
that  these  dismal  tidings  have  come  out  from  Baltimore?  Refusing 
to  notice  our  arguments,  and  unable  to  obstruct  their  influence  on 
society,  by  manoeuvre,  are  you  now  resolved  that  absolute  authority 
shall  take  our  citadel  by  storm?  An  embargo  is  not  unfrequently 
a  harbinger  for  an  open  declaration  of  war;  and  we  may  so  regard 
it,  perhaps  in  the  present  case. 

You  have  resolved,  have  you,  that  the  members  of  your  confer- 
ence shall  not  recommend  or  circulate  the  Mutual  Rights?  Why 
is  this?  Have  you  given  any  reason  for  such  an  extraordinary  re- 
solution? Or  have  you  avowed  your  determination,  not  to  enter 
into  any  "discussion  or  controversy"  upon  the  subject?  If  you  will 
not  give  a  reason  for  your  conduct,  let  your  expostulating  brethren 
do  it  for  you.  We  think  the  plain  English  reason  why  you  will  not 
read  the  Mutual  Rights,  is,  that  the  work  contains  more  truth  than 
you  are  willing  to  endure.  Ecclesiastical  power  will  not  come  to 
the  light,  lest  its  deeds  should  be  reproved. 

You  have  laid  the  heavy  arm  of  authority  on  a  young  man,  it  is 
said,  because  he  has  recommended  and  circulated  our  periodical 
publication.  Have  you  any  law  for  this?  Where  is .  it?  In  the 
discipline?  In  the  scriptures?  In  the  codes  of  the  United  States, 
or  of  the  state  of  Maryland?  If  in  none  of  these,  must  you  not 
own  that  it  was  a  perfectly  lawless  act?  And  is  the  Baltimore  an- 
nual conference  without  law  to  God?  or  is  she  under  the  law  to  Christ? 

Brethren,  what  do  you  intend  to  do?  To  prohibit  the  freedom 
of  inquiry,  and  of  reading,  is  a  greater  outrage  upon  civil  liberty, 
than  to  take  away  the  freedom  of  speech,  or  of  the  press.  It  is 
rumoured  that  some  great  man  among  you,  intends  publicly  to  vin- 
dicate the  conduct  of  the  Baltimore  annual  conference,  in  this 
case.  If  I  cannot  fairly  shew  his  arguments  to  be  inconclusive,  I 
promise  I  will  yield  to  them,  and  give  up  the  cause  of  reform. 


205 


If  you  forbid  travelling  preachers  to  circulate  the  Mutual  Rights, 
why  not  lay  the  same  prohibition  upon  the  local  preachers,  and  the 
private  members?  You  profess  to  have  equal  authority  over  them 
in  your  law-making  power;  and  why  not  in  your  sovereign  prero- 
gative to  act  without  law? 

If  you  resolve  still  to  be  inattentive  to  our  arguments,  and  to  our 
rights,  have  some  regard,  I  beseech  you,  to  your  own  standing  in 
society.  Will  your  daring  efforts  to  abridge  the  freedom  of  thought 
and  discussion,  pass  unnoticed  in  this  land  of  justice  and  indepen- 
dence, which  reflects  the  light  of  civil  and  religious  liberty  over 
both  hemispheres?  Will  the  free  born  sons  of  America,  whose 
fathers  had  such  struggles  to  cast  off  the  yoke  of  European  despo- 
tism, be  silent  and  respectful  spectators  of  your  ecclesiastical 
march  after  absolute  dominion?  Will  not  Methodists  every  where 
open  their  eyes,  and  see  that  the  efforts  of  reformers  have  not  been 
made  without  a  cause?  Think  you,  that,  with  trembling  steps,  they 
will  begin  to  gather  up  their  scattered  numbers  of  the  Mutual 
Rights,  and  commit  them  to  the  flames,  lest  the  second  edition  of 
the  Baltimore  act,  should  involve  them  also  in  its  penalties?  Will 
they  break  up  the  Union  Societies,  and  implore  your  royal  clemen- 
cy, pledging  themselves  no  more  to  peruse  the  forbidden  pages? 
Will  the  reformers  belonging  to  the  Baltimore  annual  conference 
tamely  surrender  to  your  high-toned  injunction,  and  with  an  abject 
meanness,  go  and  ask  you  what  books  they  may  be  permitted  to 
read  and  circulate?  As  well  might  you  expect  them  to  bow  down, 
and  kiss  the  great  toe  of  his  holiness  at  Rome. 

If  you  are  men  of  reason,  why  spurn  from  you  the  many  appeals 
made  to  this  noble  faculty  in  the  Mutual  Rights?  If  you  are  men 
of  one  book,  the  Bible,  why  forbid  the  reading  of  those  pages, 
where  so  many  sacred  quotations  are  to  be  found?  If  you  are  Wes- 
leyan  Methodists,  why  interdict  a  book,  which  contains  so  many 
respectful  appeals  to  Mr.  Wesley's  authority,  and  so  many  quota- 
tions from  his  works? 

A  respectable  number  of  you  were  zealous  reformers  four  or  five 
years  ago.  Have  you  taken  a  retrograde  motion,  or  become  luke- 
warm in  the  cause?  If  so,  how  is  this  fact  to  be  accounted  for? 
Has  it  arisen  from  a  dread  of  novelties,  and  a  sanguine  confidence 
that  nothing  is  true  but  "the  old  gospel  which  we  had  from  the  be- 
ginning?" That  nothing  is  true  which  contradicts  the  gospel  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  very  readily  admitted,  and  it  would  be  well  for 
the  christian  world,  if  it  were  more  generally  admitted  than  it  is. 
But  I  beseech  you  to  reflect,  that  many  of  the  warm  advocates  for 
old  things,  with  all  their  fondness  for  antiquity,  do  not  look  so  far 
back  as  to  the  days  of  our  blessed  Saviour  and  his  apostles.  Many 
things  have  been  invented  since  that  time,  which  have  now  become 
old;  and  these  are  the  things  which  excite  the  greatest  outcry 
against  novelty,  and  for  which  the  most  zealous  efforts  are  made, 
to  magnify  the  argument  of  antiquity;  because  it  is  well  known,  if 
this  should  be  torn  from  them,  they  would  have  no  other  argument 
to  rest  upon.  Because  the  gospel  is  old,  must  we  therefore  support 
27 


206 


all  the  old  absurdities  of  popery?  The  mere  argument  of  antiquity 
proves  this,  or  it  proves  nothing.  We  believe  the  gospel,  not  be- 
cause it  is  old,  for  it  was  as  true  eighteen  hundred  years  ago,  as  it 
is  now;  and  will  not  be  any  more  true,  after  the  lapse  of  ten  thou- 
sand years  to  come.  And  as  to  church  government,  if  you  insist 
on  antiquity,  we  join  in  with  you  immediately,  and  invite  you  back 
to  the  apostolic  age.  Is  not  this  old  enough  for  you?  Or  will  you 
make  your  official  conduct  demonstrate,  that  you  think  it  quite  too 
old? 

You  are  ready  to  say,  perhaps,  that  one  thing  will  open  the  way 
for  another,  that  for  another,  and  if  these  reformers  can  have  their 
will,  we  know  not  where  they  will  find  a  stopping  place.  If  you 
see  them  going  beyond  the  oracles  of  God,  and  beyond  the  apos- 
tolic age,  then  I  will  join  you  with  all  my  heart,  in  endeavouring  to 
stop  them.  The  church  of  Rome,  in  her  church  government,  went 
beyond  the  oracles  of  God,  to  borrow  pagan  rites,  and  beyond  the 
apostolic  age,  to  borrow  many  of  the  pompous  and  obsolete  cere- 
monies of  the  Jews:  had  she  regarded,  and  been  governed  by 
divine  authority,  in  all  her  discipline,  what  superstition  and  blood- 
shed would  have  been  prevented  through  the  following  ages!  You 
have  no  fears,  have  you,  that  Methodist  reformers  will  wander  as 
far  out  of  the  way  as  she  did?  Allow  us  the  stopping  place  just 
mentioned,  and  we  will  never  ask  you  to  go  beyond  it.  Nor  do 
we  wish  to  urge  a  rapid  motion,  in  our  return  to  primitive  usage 
and  simplicity.  We  only  request  you  to  take  a  step  at  a  time;  but 
in  the  mean  time,  we  wish  to  be  looking  forward,  and  clearing  the 
way  for  future  movements,  when  the  proper  season  shall  arrive. 

Remember,  brethren,  the  interest  you  felt  in  the  cause  of  reform, 
in  1823 — 4.  Where  was  then,  your  stopping  place?  Was  it  the 
election  of  presiding  elders?  The  election  of  a  stationing  com- 
mittee? or  both?  Now,  both  these  points  of  reform  evidently  con- 
templated an  enlargement  of  general  liberty,  and  an  abridgment  of 
episcopal  power:  and  if  we  now  request  that  the  representative 
principle  should  properly  run  through  the  whole  connexion,  what 
is  this  but  maintaining  that  consistency  and  impartiality  in  our 
claims,  which  truth  and  righteousness  require?  Will  our  old  re- 
forming brethren  in  the  travelling  ministry,  forsake  us  on  this  ac- 
count? Or,  if  we  plead  for  such  abridgement  and  responsibility  of 
episcopal  power,  as  shall  make  it  correspond  with  the  executive 
power  of  the  United  States,  will  the  free  born  sons  of  America 
find  fault  with  us  for  this?  Will  they  go  back,  and  support  episco- 
pal sovereignty  in  all  its  extent,  giving  up  the  presiding  elder  ques- 
tion, and  every  other  question  of  reform,  merely  because  we  want 
Methodist  bishops  put  upon  a  level  with  the  dignified  ruler  who 
presides  at  the  head  of  the  nation?  Is  it  possible,  that  this  will 
frighten  away  any  of  the  reformers  belonging  to  the  Baltimore  an- 
nual conference?  Will  they  now  give  up  their  own  rights  and  pri- 
vileges, rather  than  see  local  preachers  and  lay  members  have  the 
enjoyment  of  theirs?  To  keep  down  the  laity  and  locality,  are  they 
now  willing  to  surrender  their  own  claims,  yield  a  passive  obedi- 
ence to  their  masters,  and  do  all  that  in  them  lies,  to  perpetuate  an 


207 


absolute  hierarchy,  to  the  end  of  the  world?  We  hope  better 
things  of  Baltimore  reformers.  Too  many  in  thai  conference,  we 
know,  are  not  reformers;  too  many  are  violently  opposed  to  reform; 
from  them  we  hope  but  little. 

But  brethren,  who  are  in  any  degree  favourable  to  reform,  would 
do  well  to  consider,  that,  however  desirous  they  may  be,  to  take 
a  neutral  stand,  or  to  pursue  a  middle  course,  the  time  appears  ap- 
proaching when  our  rulers  will  not  suffer  them  to  do  either. — 
They  may  pass  along  for  a  year  or  two;  but  an  inquiry  will  proba- 
bly be  commenced  before  long,  on  the  conference  floor,  to  ascer- 
tain who  has  been  guilty  of  reading  the  Mutual  Rights;  or,  who 
has  been  guilty  of  conversing  with  others  in  favour  of  reform. — 
Every  thing  of  the  kind  will  be  considered  ''inveighing  against  our 
discipline."  Our  bishops,  presiding  elders,  and  their  admirers, 
will  be  likely  to  insist,  that  every  man  must  come  out,  and  let  the 
conference  know  where  he  stands.*  It  appears  to  be  high  time, 
therefore,  for  every  man  to  examine  church  history,  search  his 
Bible,  read  the  Mutual  Rights,  consult  his  conscience,  exercise 
his  understanding,  and  deliberately  make  up  his  mind,  concerning 
the  course  he  is  to  take,  through  the  portentous  and  eventful  scenes 
which  are  before  us. 

Some  of  the  brethren  will  probably  reply,  the  eventful  scenes 
referred  to,  are  the  very  things  which  stagger  us.  We  were  re- 
formers, until  we  saw  there  was  danger  that  the  church  would  be 
torn  to  pieces;  and  now  we  are  afraid  to  persevere.  Well,  breth- 
ren, you  are  perfectly  right  in  resolving  not  to  do  any  thing  that 
would  injure  the  church.  This  resolution,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  will 
be  abundantly  confirmed,  in  the  mind  of  every  one  of  you.  And 
what,  think  you,  will  injure  the  church?  Will  reason  or  revelation 
do  it?  Will  the  church  be  injured,  by  her  members  searching  for 
the  truth,  or  by  assisting  each  other  in  the  diligent  communication 
of  it,  through  every  lawful  medium?  Pause  and  think.  Will  the 
church  be  injured  by  an  increase  of  light  on  the  principles  of  gov- 
ernment? Will  truth,  justice,  equal  rights,  and  equal  liberty,  ever 
do  her  any  harm?  Will  it  tear  the  church  in  pieces,  to  ask  a  Me- 
thodist bishop  to  yield  the  least  tittle  of  his  power?  Or  to  ask  "the 
Itinerancy"  to  do  unto  others,  as  they  would  have  others  do  unto 
them?  And  who  intends  to  divide  the  church?  Will  reformers  do 
it,  by  voluntarily  separating?  Or  will  it  be  done  by  the  episco- 
pacy, through  the  sovereign  power  of  expulsion?  Time  will  an- 
swer these  questions.  Can  the  Baltimore  Annual  Conference  find 
no  other  way  to  avoid  injuring  and  destroying  the  church,  but  the 
old  way  of  absolute  power  maintaining  silence — forbidding  to  read, 
think,  judge,  or  converse  on  the  subject  of  church  government? 
And  pray,  then,  where  did  this  conference  receive  her  education? 
Where  did  she  learn  such  a  lesson?  You  will  have  to  look  across 
the  great  water,  to  the  Southern  regions  of  Europe,  for  an  answer 
to  this  question. 

But  why  do  I  write  this  address,  to  be  published  in  the  Mutual 
Rights,  after  that  publication  has  been  proscribed  by  the  very  per- 


*This  prediction  was  soon  fulfilled. 


208 


sons  to  whom  the  appeal  is  made?  Some  of  them  may  feel  indig- 
nant at  it,  and  may  be  disposed  to  ask:  "What  emboldeneth  thee, 
that  thou  answerest?"  I  answer,  because  if  you  will  not  read  in 
order  to  inform  your  minds  of  what  is  going  on  in  the  earth,  it  is 
probable  some  of  your  children  will.  If  you  are  too  wise,  either 
to  yield  to  our  arguments,  or  to  answer  them;  your  posterity  will 
be  able  to  judge,  whether  our  arguments  were  too  weak  to  need  an 
answer,  or  too  strong  to  admit  of  one.  They  will  discover,  whether 
your  declining  cause  had  no  occasion  to  defend  itself,  or  that  you 
had  no  ability  to  give  an  answer  which  would  bear  the  public 
scrutiny. 

Information  has  been  received  more  than  once,  that  some  of 
our  old  side  men,  among  other  schemes  of  low  cunning,  have 
fondly  whispered  that  Bartimeus  is  crazy.  A  clerical  friend,  within 
the  United  States,  lately  expressed  himself  as  being  apprehensive 

that  brother  S  ,  from  the  appearance  of  his  late  writings,  had 

fallen  into  a  state  of  insanity;  and  seriously  inquired  of  a  Western 
acquaintance,  if  this  were  not  the  case.  Bartimeus  thinks  it  best 
to  meet  this  friendly  and  sympathising  suggestion,  with  a  smile, 
and  to  wait  patiently  until  the  sane  admirers  of  episcopacy,  will 
condescend  to  answer  his  crazy  arguments.  On  this  subject  he 
deems  it  sufficient  to  reply,  "I  am  not  mad,  most  noble  Festus. 
but  speak  forth  the  words  of  truth  and  soberness." 

May,  1827.  Bartimeus. 


CHAPTER  XXVI. 

Proceedings  of  the  Baltimore  Union  Society,  in  relation  to  the  Rev. 
Dennis  B.  Dorsey' s  case. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  Baltimore  Union  Society  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  held  on  the  15th  day  of  May,  1827,  it  was 
deemed  proper  to  lay  before  the  public,  the  following  brief  narra- 
tive of  facts  relative  to  the  case  of  the  Rev.  Dennis  B.  Dorsey. 

On  Wednesday,  the  18th  of  April,  the  Rev.  Dennis  B.  Dorsey,. 
"was  charged  before  the  Baltimore  annual  conference,  with  having 
been  actively  engaged  in  the  circulation  of  an  improper  periodical 
work."  A  confidential  letter  from  Mr.  Dorsey  to  a  friend,  recom- 
mending to  his  attention  the  Mutual  Rights,  as  an  important  work 
on  church  government,  was  produced  in  evidence,  and  read  in  the 
conference.  Mr.  Dorsey  acknowledged  the  letter  to  be  his;  but 
did  not  consider  that  he  had  violated  any  law  by  recommending 
the  above  work.  After  Mr.  Dorsey  had  retired,  the  following  reso- 
lution was  offered  by  the  Rev.  Stephen  G.  Roszel,  and  adopted  by 
the  conference;  "Resolved,  that  Dennis  B.  Dorsey's  character 
pass,  upon  his  being  admonished  by  the  president;  and  promising 
the  conference  that  he  will  desist  from  taking  any  agency  in  spread- 
ing or  supporting  any  publication  in  opposition  to  our  discipline 
or  government." 


209 


On  the  following  day  the  admonition  was  given  in  due  form, 
from  the  chair;  but  Mr.  Dorsey  could  not  be  induced  to  make  the 
promise  required  by  the  resolution.  He  objected  to  it  as  unrea- 
sonable and  unjust — there  being  no  law  in  the  discipline,  prohibit- 
ing any  preacher  from  recommending  or  circulating  such  works  as 
the  Mutual  Rights.  He  stated  that  he  was  willing  to  promise  the 
conference  to  be  submissive  to  the  discipline  and  government  of  the 
church;  and  to  recommend  like  obedience  to  others,  until  by  the 
legislative  authority  of  the  church,  some  modification  of  the  gov- 
ernment could  be  effected.  A  promise  embracing  more  than  this, 
he  informed  them  he  could  not  make. 

On  Friday  the  case  was  again  resumed,  and  Mr.  Dorsey  was 
pressed  to  make  the  promise  required  by  the  resolution,  which  he 
still  declined,  urging  as  before,  the  injustice  of  the  requirement. 
Upon  which,  the  Rev.  Stephen  G.  Roszel  made  the  following  mo- 
tion: "Moved,  that  the  character  of  brother  Dorsey  pass,  upon  his 
being  reproved  by  the  president  for  his  contumacy  in  resisting  the 
authority  of  the  conference."  This  motion,  however,  did  not  pre- 
vail. After  considerable  desultory  conversation  on  the  case,  the 
following  resolution  was  offered  by  the  Rev.  Job  Guest,  and  adopted 
by  the  conference:  "Moved  and  seconded,  that  the  bishops  be  and 
hereby  are  requested  not  to  give  Dennis  B.  Dorsey  an  appointment 
for  the  present  year;  and  that  his  name  be  so  returned  on  the 
minutes,  with  the  reasons  assigned  why  he  has  not  an  appoint- 
ment, viz:  his  contumacy  in  regard  to  the  authority  of  the  confer- 
ence." On  Saturday,  the  latter  part  of  this  motion  was  so  far  re- 
scinded as  to  omit  the  publication  of  it  on  the  printed  minutes  of 
the  conference,  but  to  retain  it  on  the  journal. 

Thus  was  brother  Dorsey,  a  presbyter  in  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  without  any  charge  against  his  moral  or  religious  char- 
acter, left,  by  the  order  of  the  conference,  without  a  prospect  of 
support  for  himself  and  family;  and  that  too,  with  a  constitution 
seriously  injured  in  the  service  of  the  church. 

Now  as  it  is  the  undoubted  right  of  every  man,  to  express  his 
opinion  of  the  official  conduct  of  his  ecclesiastical  as  well  as  his 
civil  rulers;  and  whereas  we  deem  the  proceedings,  against  Mr. 
Dorsey  as  intended  to  prevent  the  diffusion  of  light  on  a  subject 
of  vital  importance  to  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  the 
community  at  large. 

Therefore,  Resolved,  1st.  That  the  conduct  of  the  late  Balti- 
more annual  conference,  in  the  case  of  the  Rev.  Dennis  B.  Dorsey, 
was  oppressive  in  its  character,  and  not  warranted  by  the  scrip- 
tures, nor  the  discipline  of  the  church. 

Resolved,  2dly.  That  in  the  opinion  of  this  society,  the  confer- 
ence in  thus  oppressing  Mr.  Dorsey,  has  evinced  a  determination, 
not  only  to  withhold  representation  from  the  membership  and  local 
ministry,  but  also  to  keep  them  in  ignorance  of  the  true  principles 
of  church  government. 

Resolved,  3dly.  That  this  society  duly  appreciate  the  firm  and 
dignified  stand  taken  by  Mr.  Dorsey  in  the  conference,  in  favour  of 


210 


the  principles  of  religious  freedom,  and  tender  to  him  their  most  af- 
fectionate regards. 

Resolved,  4thly.  That  this  society  deem  it  but  just  to  say,  that 
several  members  of  the  conference,  together  with  bishop  Roberts, 
manifested  a  liberal  spirit  on  the  occasion. 

Resolved,  5thly.  That  the  above  narrative  and  resolutions  be 
published. 

John  Chappell,  sen.  President. 


CHAPTER  XXVII. 

Letter  addressed  to  the  Rev.  Dennis  B.  Dorsey,  by  a  travelling 

preacher. 

My  Dear  Sir, 

Not  knowing  you  personally,  nor  the  place  of  your  residence,  I 
ask  the  privilege  of  addressing  you  through  the  medium  of  the 
"Mutual  Rights,"  for  approving  and  recommending  of  which,  you 
now  stand  suspended  as  a  Methodist  travelling  preacher!  The 
Baltimore  annual  conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church — 
with  three  or  more  bishops  present  to  direct  and  shape  its  measures, 
have,  by  a  solemn  resolution,  after  several  days'  deliberation,  offi- 
cially decided  that  a  presbyter  in  the  church  of  God,  deserves  pun- 
ishment and  disgrace,  because  he  adopts  opinions  and  sentiments 
on  the  subject  of  church  government,  which  are  received  and  acted 
upon  by  a  large  majority  of  protestant  christians,  throughout  the 
various  divisions  of  the  religious  world !  I  cannot  pause  my  brother, 
to  write  the  many  denunciations  that  common  sense,  throughout 
an  outraged  community,  will  pronounce  upon  this  overbearing  act 
of  abandoned  tyranny!    But  I  hasten  to  inquire  why  were  you 
selected  as  the  victim,  the  sole  victim,  when  it  was  in  proof  before 
them  that  others  were  in  the  same  condemnation!  Why  did  not 
my  lord  of  Canterbury,  who  ''rides  in  the  whirlwind  and  directs  the 
storm"  among  you,  and  by  whom  even  bishops  are  tithed  at  will, 
together  with  the  active  and  zealous  Doctor,  the  principal  officer 
in  his  "star  chamber,"  select  a  goodly  number  of  victims,  and  offer 
an  appalling  hecatomb  at  once!   Was  it  because  heaven  had  de- 
prived you  of  health?    Was  it  because  you  were  remote  from  home 
and  friends?    Was  it  because  like  your  Master  you  were  poor,  and 
with  the  humble  sharer  of  your  fortunes,  "had  scarcely  where  to 
lay  your  head!"    Did  they  wish  by  increasing  your  mental  inquie- 
tude, to  strengthen  the  desolation  without,  and  so  send  you  to  a  pre- 
mature grave?    Or  was  it  intended  by  the  horror  of  the  example 
made  of  you,  to  say  to  other  reformers  "if  you  have  the  word,  we 
have  the  sword ! !"    I  cannot  refrain  from  asking  where  three  or 
four  members  of  the  Baltimore  conference  were  during  this  laboured 
deed  of  hard-earned  infamy  ?  Did  they  sit  by,  in  inglorious  silence"' 
But  my  brother,  be  not  discouraged,  recollect  that  the  great  father 
of  us  all,  as  Methodists,  was  by  a  similar  body,  and  in  the  same 


211 


city,  forty  years  ago,  declared  unworthy  of  a  name  or  place,  in  thsi 
communion,  in  the  bosom  of  which,  you  now  find  yourself  honour- 
ably degraded.  When  Mr.  Wesley  was  informed  of  this,  he  de- 
clared in  a  letter,  now  in  my  possession,  that  the  American  bishop 
had  "no  more  connection  with  him — "  But  I  trust  you  will  not 
so  decide  in  relation  to  your  blinded  and  prejudiced  brethren — 
"yet  a  little  while,"  and  this  stupid,  laudean  zeal,  will  be  cooled  in 
the  humiliation  and  disgrace  of  your  prosecutors;  public  indigna- 
tion will  chastise  their  pitiful  pretensions,  to  lordly  inquisition  over 
the  rights  and  consciences  of  those,  who  have  too  much  intelli- 
gence and  too  much  candour  to  think  and  act  by  their  prescription! 
To  conclude,  my  dear  sir,  I  beg  you  to  accept  the  best  wishes  of  a 
stranger.  "Faint  not  in  the  day  of  evil."  The  honorary  over- 
throw you  have  sustained,  for  the  rights  of  conscience,  will  make 
strangers  your  friends.  On  hearing  of  the  treatment  you  and  others 
received  at  the  Baltimore  conference,  ten  or  twelve  persons  within 
my  charge  have  declared  for  reform,  and  are  ready  to  aid  you  with 
their  influence  and  purses.  Wishing  the  speedy  restoration  of  your 
health,  and  that  you  may  live  to  see  the  curse  of  religious  oppres- 
sion banished  from  the  church  and  the  world — I  remain  yours  in 
the  kingdom  and  patience  of  Jesus  Christ. 
Rev.  D.  B.  Dorsey.  Vindex. 
April  27th,  1827. 

Upon  the  receipt  of  information  from  Baltimore,  that  the  forego- 
ing letter  had  given  great  offence  and  that  it  would  have  a  place 
among  the  papers  "indicated"  for  the  purpose  of  sustaining  the 
prosecutions  which  were  then  pending,  Vindex  forwarded  the  fol- 
lowing note  of  explanation,  to  be  inserted  in  the  Mutual  Rights. 

Note  of  Explanation  from  Vindex. 

Gentlemen, 

I  regret  that  you  are  about  to  be  troubled  on  my  account. 
My  letter  to  Mr.  Dorsey,  was  written  immediately  on  the  receipt 
of  a  letter  from  an  old  side  brother  in  Baltimore,  detailing  the  facts 
in  Mr.  Dorsey's  case,  not  one  of  which  has  been  contradicted  by 
the  famous  manifesto  of  Mr.  Wilkins  &  Co.,  but  rather  confirmed; 
with  the  exception  of  a  little  varnish  and  misrepresentation.  I  ad- 
mit that  I  have  expressed  myself  in  strong  and  severe  terms,  and 
have  all  along  been  willing  to  have  it  in  my  power,  to  correct  and 
recall,  by  learning  that  my  information  was  more  or  less  incorrect. 
But  after  hearing  all  that  can  be  said  on  the  subject,  I  am  perfectly 
satisfied  that  my  error,  if  any,  has  not  been  a  very  serious  one. 
That  the  act  of  the  conference,  was  an  1  'overbearing''  one,  tending 
to  repress  freedom  of  inquiry,  and  punishing  an  individual  for  hold- 
ing opinions  which  we  have  published  to  the  world  in  our  standard 
works,  are  not  essential,  is  an  assertion  I  shall  prove  by  indubita- 
ble evidence,  when  it  becomes  necessary.  That  the  act  was  an 
"abandonment'  in  executive  practice  of  law,  brotherly  love,  and  that 
liberality  every  where  characteristic  of  the  more  enlightened  Meth- 
odists, is  a  proposition  I  am  equally  competent  to  prove,  when  it  is 


212 


called  for  by  any  thing,  but  abuse  and  personal  vituperation.  That 
the  act  was  'tyrannical'  that  is;  that  it  resembled  the  policy  of  ty- 
rants punishing  without  law,  and  beyond  its  provisions,  acting  an 
inclement,  imperious  part,  in  relation  to  one  whose  conduct  did 
not  deserve  punishment,  and  who  had  not  the  means  of  successful 
resistance  and  defence,  at  the  time,  is  a  position,  the  assumption 
of  which  I  again  renew.  I  have  said  that  the  deed,  by  which  Mr. 
Dorsey  was  degraded,  was  an  infamous  one,  that  is,  a  notoriously 
improper  and  unjustifiable  one.  This  is  what  is  always  under- 
stood by  the  term,  I  believe,  when  applied  to  acts  of  administra- 
tion: at  all  events,  it  is  what  I  meant  by  it.  I  intended  to  convey 
the  idea,  that  the  conduct  of  the  conference  would  become  the 
subject  of  open  censure,  of  public  reproach,  and  that  the  affair  of 
punishing  Mr.  Dorsey,  in  the  anomalous  way  in  which  it  was  ef- 
fected, would  be  a  matter  of  deep  and  burning  shame,  to  those 
men,  who  in  the  character  of  heaven's  best  messengers  to  the  pre- 
sent generation,  are  continually  praying  "forgive  us  our  sins  as 
we  forgive  those  who  sin  against  us?"  And  are  daily  haranguing 
thousands  on  the  duty  and  importance  of  forgiveness,  forbearance 
and  brotherly  kindness.  Upon  the  whole,  I  consider  my  letter  to 
Mr.  Dorsey,  substantially  correct,  in  its  general  meaning  and  bear- 
ing. Had  I  written  under  different  circumstances,  I  should  pro- 
bably have  expressed  myself  with  less  severity;  but  the  conduct  of 
the  reigning  party  in  Baltimore  has  shown,  that  I  anticipated  their 
real  temper  and  disposition,  and  developed  pretty  correctly  their 
collective  character.  I  must  atone  therefore  for  the  style  of  that 
letter,  by  an  expression  of  regret,  that  facts  and  principles  subse- 
quently disclosed,  have  fully  authorized  my  impressions  and  fears 
at  the  time  of  writing.  Mr.  Wilkins  and  Co.  in  their  declamatory 
address,  assert,  with  as  little  regard  to  truth  as  "decency,"  that  I 
have  employed  the  temost  abusive  epithets  to  which  malignity  itself 
could  resort."  In  reply,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  say,  no  honest  man 
will  believe  the  assertion,  who  has  seen  my  letter;  and  those  who 
do,  are  at  liberty  to  bundle  with  my  detractors.  I  am  also  said,  to 
be  among  the  "enemies  of  Methodism;"  public  opinion,  however, 
will  set  this  down  also,  where  it  ought  to  be,  on  the  score  of  malice 
and  misrepresentation.  To  conclude,  if  in  my  strictures  upon 
the  conduct  of  the  Baltimore  conference,  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Dorsey, 
there  is  to  be  found  any  thing  vicious,  on  account  of  its  severity,  it 
is  a  vice,  so  nearly  allied  to  virtue,  that  my  defence  will  not  be  dif- 
ficult, and  so  for  the  present  I  let  it  rest.  Vindex. 
Sept.  21sf,  1827. 

A  copy  of  the  Narrative  and  Defence  having  reached  Vindex,  he 
wrote  and  forwarded  the  following  address  to  the  Editors,  which 
the  reader  will  find  to  be  such  as  the  occasion  called  for,  and  the 
prosecutors  and  the  agent  justly  merited. 

Vindex  to  the  Editors. 

Messrs.  Editors, 

I  perceive  I  am  so  unfortunate  as  to  have  fallen  under  the  dis- 
pleasure of  Messrs-  Earnest,  Rogers,  Toy,  Harden,  Yearley,  and 


213 


Israel — (or  rather,  as  some  think,  the  spleen  of  their  pugnacious 
secretary,)  on  account  of  the  letter  I  addressed  to  the  Rev.  D.  B. 
Dorsey,  in  May  1827. — In  the  remarks  upon  my  letter  to  which 
these  gentlemen  have  appended  their  names,  found  on  pages  16  and 
74  of  their  late  "Narrative,"  I  see  nothing  worthy  of  particular 
notice,  except  the  want  of  truth  and  candour,  manifested  in  every 
line,  they  have  so  flippantly  conjured  into  a  phillipic,  upon  the 
writer  of  "Vindex."  Every  single  statement  they  have  made  in 
relation  to  my  letter,  betrays  the  facility  and  "recklessness" 
with  which  they  are  capable  of  misrepresenting  facts,  connected 
with  the  subject  of  reform.  As  it  respects  the  relative  "decency" 
of  my  letter,  it  is  not  destined,  I  apprehend,  to  lose  much  in  com- 
parison with  the  productions  of  my  critics  in  reply,  whether  of 
"star  chamber"  or  "Pitt  street"  memory. — The  conduct  upon 
which  I  found  it  necessary  to  offer  a  few  strictures,  had  but  slender 
claims  to  Christian  "decency,"  or  religious  propriety,  and  hence  it 
was  the  less  necessary  for  me  to  be  particularly  select  in  the  choice 
of  language.  But  after  all  that  has  been  said  upon  the  subject, 
the  charge  of  indecorum  in  the  use  of  terms,  can  only  be  fixed  upon 
Vindex  by  showing  that  he  had  no  occasion  to  use  severe  language; — 
and  until  this  is  done  the  writer  of  the  "Narrative"  (if  I  conjec- 
ture right)  or  those  who  have  kindly  consented  to  stand  godfathers 
to  "the  precious  bantling" — will  receive  no  apology  from  the  ob- 
ject of  their  abuse.  The  allusion  to  the  "star  chamber"  in  my 
letter  to  Mr.  Dorsey,  was  intended  to  call  the  attention  of  those 
concerned,  to  a  few  individuals,  some  of  them  members,  and  some 
of  them  not  members  of  the  Baltimore  Conference;  who  were  try- 
ing, as  I  conceived,  by  very  unfair  and  high  handed  measures  to 
injure  and  degrade  reformers — that  the  conference  was  not  intended, 
is  plain  from  the  connexion  of  the  letter. — Vindex  is  of  opinion, 
further,  that  a  legislative  body,  or  executive  tribunal,  may  enact  a 
law,  or  make  up  a  decision,  oppressive  and  tyrannical  in  its  nature 
and  tendency,  without  deserving  the  denomination  of  "tyrants" 
applied  to  the  individuals  composing  the  body,  or  tribunal  in  ques- 
tion— such  a  law  may  be  the  effects  of  haste,  surprise,  or  passion, 
it  may  resnlt  from  want  of  information,  or  a  few  artful  leaders  may 
impose  on  the  rest,  even  when  there  is  the  appearance  of  serious 
and  solemn  deliberation.  The  influence,  therefore,  of  the  saga- 
cious committee  of  "inquiry"  that  I  have  charged  the  members  of 
the  Baltimore  conference  as  "infamous  tyrants;"  is  far  from  being 
either  logical  or  just;  it  was  not  my  intention  to  do  so,  and  I  take 
pleasure  in  avowing  it.  But  should  that  body,  by  a  repetition  of 
similar  acts,  approve  and  perpetuate  the  policy  of  the  single  mea- 
sure alluded  to,  then  I  should  be  disposed  to  apply  to  them  the 
language  I  have  applied  to  a  solitary  isolated  action  of  their  lives. 
Permit  me  to  ask,  was  it  the  intention  of  the  evangelists,  to  char- 
acterize the  apostle  Peter,  as  a  profane  swearer  and  common  liar, 
when  they  narrate,  that  when  under  severe  temptation;  "he  cursed, 
and  swore  that  he  knew  not  the  man"  whom  he  had  been  follow- 
ing for  years?  Or  did  St.  Paul  intend  to  denounce  him  as  a  dis- 
28 


214 


sernbler,  when  he  affirms  that  on  one  occasion  at  least,  he  was 
guilty  of  "dissimulation?"  or  again,  we  ask,  did  our  Lord  intend 
to  be  understood,  that  the  apostle  was  a  devil,  when  he  said  "get 
behind  me  Satan?" — If  these  questions  are  negatived,  as  they  must 
be  by  every  man  of  common  sense,  then  surely  it  does  not  follow 
from  the  facts  involved,  that  Vindex  has  said  what  the  Baltimore  pro- 
secuting committee  and  council  make  him  say.  Have  not  deliber- 
ative assemblies  as  well  as  individual  rulers  in  all  ages,  been  oc- 
casionally guilty  of  cruel  and  oppressive  enactments,  without  for- 
feiting their  claims,  to  general  and  enlightened  benevolence?  No 
inference,  therefore,  can  be  drawn  from  the  remarks  of  Vindex, 
that  will  justify  the  language  of  his  accusers — he  indignantly  ani- 
madverted upon  conduct,  but  except  an  allusion  to  one  or  two  in- 
dividuals, left  general  character  alone. 

Thus  far  I  had  proceeded  when  I  received  the  intelligence,  that 
the  Baltimore  conference  had  expelled  the  Rev.  D.  B.  Dorsey  for 
circulating  the  "Mutual  Rights,"  and  the  "History  and  Mystery  of 
Methodist  Episcopacy" — and  also  the  Rev.  Wm.  C.  Pool,  for  aid- 
ing in  the  formation  of  a  Union  Society,  and  subsequently  deliver- 
ing an  address  before  said  society,  in  furtherance  of  its  objects.  Such 
conduct,  I  confess,  I  consider,  as  inexcusably  oppressive  and 
tyrannical,  and  I  moreover  believe  it  to  be  the  natural  offspring  of 
ignorance,  bigotry,  and  misguided  zeal.  The  committee  who  have 
honoured  me  with  their  notice,  can  think  on  this  subject  as  they 
please,  I  want  no  higher  praise  than  the  censure  of  men  who  are  capa- 
ble of  approving  such  unmanly  and  unholy  persecution.  Before  I 
close,  I  must  beg  leave  to  correct  an  error  on  the  part  of  the  com- 
mittee, which  must  have  resulted  from  ignorance,  or  a  disposition 
to  garble  the  truth  in  imitation  of  one  who  had  preceded  them  in 
the  business  of  studied  defamation,  they  say,  Vindex  was  a  new 
or  "late  recruit." — This  happens  not  to  be  true.  Vindex  was  one 
among  the  reformers  who  drafted  a  memorial  to  the  general  con- 
ference in  1816,  12  years  ago,  praying  for  important  alterations  in 
the  government  of  the  church — and  as  early  as  1822,  published 
his  thoughts  at  length  on  this  subject,  in  the  "Wesleyan  Reposi- 
tory." It  is  therefore,  in  conclusion,  respectfully  recommended 
to  the  "committee"  having  the  supervision  of  morals  in  Baltimore, 
that  hereafter  they  should  pay  a  little  more  attention  to  their  ovml 

With  all  due  respect, 

April,  1828.  Vindex. 

We  never  yet  have  thought  Vindex  too  severe.  The  Baltimore 
Annual  Conference  had  determined  to  sacrifice  Mr.  D.  B.  Dorsey, 
at  the  shrine  of  clerical  power,  in  expectation,  that  such  a  decisive 
step  would  deter  our  friends,  and  put  a  stop  to  the  further  progress 
of  reform.  Their  proceedings,  therefore,  merited  a  severe  rebuke; 
and  no  man  was  better  prepared  to  do  them  justice,  than  Vindex. 
Our  readers  have  learned  from  the  accompanying  documents,  that 
the  proceedings  in  the  case  were  without  law  or  established  prece- 
dent;— in  course  they  were  arbitrary  and  tyrannical.  It  put  in  re- 
quisition all  the  talent  and  consumed  much  of  the  time  of  the  con- 


215 


ierence,  to  accomplish  their  purpose.  Vindex,  therefore,  said  of 
it,  truly,  that  it  was  "a  laboured  deed." — In  pursuing  their  victim, 
they  were  obliged  to  overcome  all  their  personal  regards  for  an  af- 
flicted brother! — They  had  to  resist  the  relentings,  which  are  uni- 
versally felt  by  men  of  merit,  on  seeing  such  firmness  as  Mr.  Dor- 
sey  evinced  in  asserting  his  rights  before  his  oppressors; — and 
which  he  did  in  a  manner  that  will  long  be  remembered  to  his  hon- 
our, as  a  man  and  christian  minister! — They  had  to  suppress  the 
disposition  to  forgiveness,  which  was  excited  by  an  affectionate  as- 
surance of  his  desire  and  purpose,  as  far  as  he  could,  with  a  good 
conscience,  to  submit  to  the  will  of  his  brethren! — They  had  to 
overrule  all  the  sympathies  which  pleaded  in  behalf  of  a  fellow  ser- 
vant of  Jesus  Christ,  standing  on  the  verge  of  the  grave,  out  of 
sight  and  out  of  the  reach  of  any  sinister  interest! — Every  tender 
emotion,  which  the  oppression  of  a  brother  in  circumstances  so 
loudly  calling  for  compassion  was  calculated  to  excite,  they  were 
obliged  to  smother! — Surely  then  it  was  a  "hardly  earned"  triumph. 
And  in  despite  of  their  hopes  to  escape  merited  reproach,  the  dis- 
interested part  of  the  community  and  posterity  will  brand  the  pro- 
ceedings with  "infamy." 


CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

It  appears  from  the  letter  of  Vindex  to  Mr.  D.  B.  Dorsey,  that 
by  some  means,  he  has  learned  that  doctor  Bond,  was  a  chief  offi- 
cer in  the  Star  Chamber.  This  notice  of  the  Doctor,  led  him  to 
retort  upon  Vindex,  in  his  epistle  dedicatory,  addressed  to  Mr. 
Snethen,  and  introductory  to  his  appeal  to  the  Methodists,  in  op- 
position to  the  changes  proposed  in  their  church  government,  p. 
6.  "The  subaltern  alluded  to,"  says  the  Doctor,  has  already  dis- 
tinguished me  as  the  chief  officer  of  the  star  chamber,  to  my  lord 
of  Canterbury.  Notwithstanding,  I  have  the  misfortune  to  be  out 
of  favour  with  you,  I  will  do  you  the  service  to  rebuke  the  indis- 
creet ardour  of  this  recruit,  lest  he  should  do  you  more  harm  than 
good,  by  his  temerity.  Let  him  know  then,  that  his  fictitious  sig- 
nature has  not  concealed  him  as  well  as  he  intended;  we  have  had 
a  peep  under  his  mask,  and  would  advise  him  to  be  careful  in  future 
not  to  expose  his  ignorance,  in  print.  The  star  chamber  was  a 
civil  not  an  ecclesiastical  tribunal,  and  therefore  neither  my  lord  of 
Canterbury  nor  his  chief  officer,  could  have  had  any  thing  to  do 
with  its  decisions.  Let  him  keep  his  learning  for  the  pulpit — a 
rhetorical  flourish  ad  captandum  vulgus,  may  pass  as  well  as  crude 
geological  arguments,  when  mixed  up  with  the  desultory  matter  of 
a  very  long  sermon,  but  it  may  not  be  safe  to  place  either  before 
the  public,  through  the  medium  of  the  press." 

The  Doctor  ought  to  have  been  sure  he  was  right,  before  he 
ventured  so  bold  a  challenge.  Now  to  let  our  readers  see  what  kind 
of  a  guide  was  followed  by  the  Pitt  street  meeting,  and  again  by 
i he  quarterly  meeting  conference,  when  they  voted  unanimously 


216 


agreeably  to  the  agent's  wishes,  the  condemnation  of  the  Mutual 
Rights,  without  having  read  the  work  lor  themselves,  we  here  insert 
the  reply  of  Vindex  to  doctor  Bond's  rebuke  and  accusation  of 
ignorance. 

Vindex,  in  Controversy  with  Dr.  Bond. 

Messrs.  Editors, — I  send  you  a  few  proofs  and  authorities,  de- 
monstrating the  correctness  of  an  allusion  to  the  "star  chamber," 
in  my  letter  to  the  Rev.  Dennis  B.  Dorsey,  published  in  your  May 
number  for  the  year  current.  The  testimonies  I  send  you,  will  sat- 
isfy the  judicious  and  discerning,  that  my  allusion  was  historically 
correct,  and  strictly  in  place.  As  it  respects  the  application  of  it  in 
the  case  of  Mr.  Dorsey,  I  would  simply  remark,  I  thought  it  just 
and  proper  at  the  time  of  writing,  and  taking  into  consideration  all 
the  circumstances  of  the  case,  I  think  so  still.  So  far  as  individuals 
are  concerned,  my  communication  left  them  to  be  "distinguished" 
by  the  notoriety  of  their  conduct,  or  not  at  all;  and  in  this  attitude, 
I  consider  it  fair  and  honourable  still  to  recognize  them.  My  only 
concern,  therefore,  with  doctor  Bond,  at  present,  is,  to  let  our  rea- 
ders know,  that  but  for  his  "ignorance,"  I  should  not  have  been 
charged  with  want  of  information,  in  relation  to  the  "star  cham- 
ber." The  following  authorities,  will  perhaps  satisfy  the  public  that 
the  star  chamber  had  cognizance  of  ecclesiastical  matters.  This  is 
expressly  denied  by  doctor  Bond,  and  we  are  fairly  at  issue.  The 
doctor  says,  "the  star  chamber  was  a  civil,  not  an  ecclesiastical  tri- 
bunal, and  therefore,  neither  my  lord  of  Canterbury,  nor  his  chief 
officer,  could  have  any  thing  to  do  with  its  decisions."  To  this 
assertion,  I  oppose  the  following  authorities. 

"The  star  chamber  was  a  court,  composed  of  twenty  or  thirty  no- 
blemen, bishops,  judges,  and  counsellors,  nominated  by  the  crown, 
with  the  king  or  queen  at  the  head,  who  was  sole  judge  when  pre- 
sent, (which  was  seldom,)  but  in  the  absence  of  the  king  or  queen 
they  decided  by  a  vote  of  the  majority,  the  lord  chancellor  having 
the  casting  vote."  NeaPs  History  of  the  Puritans,  vol.  1.  page  455. 
"The  star  chamber,  camera  stellata,  was  a  court  of  very  ancient 
original,  consisting  of  divines,  lords,  spiritual  and  temporal,  being 
privy  counsellors,  together  with  two  judges  of  the  court  of  common 
law,  without  the  intervention  of  any  jury."  Blackstone's  Com- 
mentary, iv.  vol.  book  4,  chap.  19.  page  265 — 6.  "The  star 
chamber  consisted  of  the  lords  spiritual  and  temporal,"  with  oth- 
ers, "they  stretched  their  power  beyond  the  utmost  bounds  of 
legality,  punishing  small  offences,  or  no  offences  at  all,  but  of  their 
own  creating."  Nicholson's  Encyclopaedia,  art.  star  chamber. 
Bishops,  therefore,  as  lords  over  God's  heritage,  had  something  to 
do  with  the  "decisions,"  of  the  star  chamber,  and  so  had  "my 
lord  of  Canterbury,"  as  we  shall  see  by  and  by. 

"The  star  chamber  was  the  most  intollerant  of  all  tribunals,  and 
encroached  on  the  jurisdiction  of  othtr  courts,  its  punishments 
were  enormous — Prynne,  a  barrister  of  Lincoln's  Inn,  for  reviling 
plays,  hunting  and  public  festivals,  and  for  blaming  the  hierarchy 


217 


and  the  new  superstitions  of  Laud,  in  a  book  which  he  published, 
was  condemned  to  be  put  from  the  bar,  to  be  pilloried  in'two  places, 
to  lose  both  his  ears,  pay  five  thousand  pounds  to  the  king,  and 
be  imprisoned  for  life."    New  Encyclopedia,  art.  Britain.  "The 
star  chamber  was  a  court  which  exercised  high  discretionary  pow-^ 
ers,  and  had  no  precise  rule  or  limit  either  with  regard  to  the  causes, 
which  came  under  its  jurisdiction,  or  the  decisions  which  it  formed." 
Hume's  England,  vol.  5,  page  44.    The  statute  of  1641  abolishing 
the  high  commission  and  star  chamber,  is  said  by  Charles  in  his 
speech  to  the  long  parliament,  to  alter  fundamental  laws,  civil  and 
ecclesiastical,  lb. — In  the  reign  of  Elizabeth,  15S4,  bishop  Grindal 
at  the  instigation  of  the  queen,  was  by  an  order  of  the  star  cham- 
ber, sequestered  from  his  arch-episcopal  function,  and  confined  to 
his  own  house.    Hume  vol.  4,  page  25.    Hume  says,  Laud's  ven- 
geance was  the  principal  cause  of  the  degradation  of  bishop  Wil- 
liams, in  the  star  chamber,  and  that  the  severity  of  Prynne's  sen- 
tence in  the  star  chamber,  is  to  be  attributed  to  his  religious  opinions 
as  a  Puritan,  vol.  4,  page  246 — Bishop  Williams,  of  Lincoln, 
was  cited  to  trial  before  the  star  chamber,  by  the  instigations  of 
Laud,  upon  a  charge  of  Puritanic  principles.  Neal,  vol.  2,  pages 
172,  282.    Prynne,  Bostwick,  and  Burton,  were  all  cited  before, 
and  condemned  by  the  star  chamber,  because  they  pleaded  for 
reform  in  the  government  of  the  church.    Neal,  vol.  2,  pages 
250 — 1 — 2.  see  also  contents  of  chap.  5,  page  23. — Mr.  Neal  says, 
If  they  will  call  a  relation  of  the  illegal  severities  of  the  star  cham- 
ber a  satire  against  the  present  establishment,  they  must  use  their 
liberty  as  I  shall  mine!  vol.  2,  page  15. — In  1627,  Prynne,  Bost- 
wick and  Burton,  were  again  cited  before  the  star  chamber,  "my 
lord  of  Canterbury"  being  present,  and  passing  sentence!  vol.  2 
pages  278 — 9,  also  280,  note;  see  also  notice  of  a  speech  of  arch- 
bishop Laud,  in  the  star  chamber.    Page  285.    "Laud  who  was 
sitting  in  the  star  chamber,  at  the  time  of  Prynne's  harangue,  moved 
that  he  might  be  gagged."    M'Cauley's  England,  vol.  2,  page  243. 

The  court  of  the  star  chamber,  punished  individuals  for  publish- 
ing books  and  pamphlets,  and  in  some  instances,  for  "recommend- 
ing" them  against  the  hierarchy,  page  286. — In  1632,  Mr.  Sher- 
field  was  tried  and  convicted  in  the  star  chamber  for  being  evil- 
affected  to  the  discipline  of  the  church,  and  Laud  in  person  moved 
his  punishment!  page  224.  On  one  occasion,  twelve  laymen  were 
fined  in  the  star  chamber  for  employing  ministers  in  their  families, 
without  consulting  "my  lord  of  Canterbury!"  vol.  2,  pages  222-3. 
"The  prosecution  of  Mr.  Prynne  originated  with  archbishop  Laud." 
page  251.  And  yet  Laud  pronounced  his  sentence.  "The  report 
flew  into  Scotland,  and  the  discourse  was  there,  that  they  must  also 
expect  a  star  chamber  to  strengthen  the  hands  of  their  bishops!" 
page  287.  The  celebrated  Mr.  Rushworth,  says,  the  acts  of  this 
court  were  without  law!  Lord  Clarendon  states,  that  no  man 
could  any  longer  hope  to  be  free  from  the  inquisition  of  that  court, 
than  he  resolved  to  submit  to  its  extraordinary  courses.  The  well 
known  Mr.  Cartwright,  the  father  of  the  Puritans,  and  fifteen  other 
dissenting  ministers,  were  brought  twice  before  the  star  chamber, 


218 


and  were  all  shamefully  degraded  and  punished  by  its  decisions. 
Neal,  vol.  1,  pages  445-6-7.  "The  archbishop  sent  the  most  of 
his  prisoners  to  the  star  chamber."  page  460. 

"My  pains  or  weakness  must  excuse  me  herein,  when  I  was 
younger,  and  had  my  health,  I  so  diligently  attended  the  star 
chamber,  that  for  full  seven  years,  I  was  not  one  day  wanting." 
Archbishop  Laud's  letter,  see  Rushworth's  Collections  1628, 
page  453. 

Dr.  Alexander  Leighton,  was  ordered  by  the  star  chamber,  to  be 
degraded  from  the  ministry,  pilloried,  whipt,  fined  and  imprisoned 
during  life,  for  writing  against  the  corruptions  of  the  hierarchy; 
Neal,  vol.  2,  pages  209,  10 — that  he  was  degraded  by  the  star 
chamber  solely  on  account  of  his  principles,  as  a  reformer,  opposed 
to  the  lordly  pretensions,  of  an  overbearing  episcopacy,,  is  the  tes- 
timony of  Pierce.  See  Vindication,  page  177,  and  of  Rushworth, 
vol.  1,  page  55,  also  Neal,  pages  2,  9, 10.  At  one  time,  the  king 
himself,  appeared  in  the  star  chamber  and  preached  against  reform, 
his  text  was,  Psalm  72,  1.  The  last  sentence  in  this  not  "very 
long  sermon"  would  have  been  an  excellent  motto  for  doctor  Bond's 
book.  "Plead  not  upon  Puritanic  principles,  which  make  all 
things  popular,  but  keep  within  the  ancient  limits!"  Rapin.  vol. 
2,  pages  192,  3,  and  note  9,  also  Neal,  vol.  2,  page  101.  I  con- 
clude these  notices  of  the  star  chamber,  as  an  ecclesiastical,  as 
well  as  civil  tribunal,  by  citing  another  instance  in  Mr.  Neal — 
when  the  infamous  sentence  of  the  court  of  star  chamber,  was  pro- 
nounced upon  the  venerable  doctor  Leighton,  "my  lord  of  Canter- 
bury," Laud,  was  present,  and  evinced  his  satisfaction,  on  witness- 
ing this  fiendish  deed,  of  religious  cruelty,  by  pulling  off  his  hat 
and  giving  God  thanks!  vol.  3,  page  210. 

The  preceding  proofs  will  place  the  correctness  of  my  allusion 
to  the  "star  chamber"  beyond  doubt.  The  remaining  charges  in 
the  notice  the  doctor  has  taken  of  "Vindex,"  are  too  paltry  to 
merit  replication — their  want  of  fitness,  will  furnish  sufficient  refu- 
tation, and  I  return  them  to  the  doctor,  in  company  with  the  charge 
of  "ignorance,"  non  constat.  With  these  remarks,  I  take  leave  of 
doctor  Bond,  until  he  shall  feel  it  his  "duty"  to  write  again,  when, 
should  he  honour  me  with  a  second  notice,  I  shall,  if  preserved., 
attend  to  him  as  the  nature  of  the  case  may  require. 

July,  1827.  Vindex. 

After  such  a  specimen  of  doctor  Bond's  information  and  accu- 
racy, our  readers  will  judge  how  formidable  we  considered  his  pro- 
mise or  his  threat,  to  ''write  down"  reform. 


210 


CHAPTER  XXIX. 

An  account  of  the  Rev.  Wm.  C.  Pool's  trial  before  the  Baltimore 
Annual  Conference. 

We  think  it  due  to  Rev.  William  C.  Pool  to  insert  in  this  place, 
the  following  brief  account  of  his  trial  before  the  Baltimore  Annual 
Conference.  We  introduce  it  here  because  it  will  serve  to  give  a 
further  illustration  of  the  spirit  and  temper  of  the  travelling  preach- 
ers in  respect  to  the  friends  of  reform.  The  account  is  copied 
from  the  Mutual  Rights  and  Christian  Intelligencer,  bearing  the 
date  November  20,  1828. 

Mr.  Editor: — To  me  it  appears  strictly  necessary,  that  someone 
should  give  an  account  of  the  trial  of  Wm.  C.  Pool,  before  the  last 
Baltimore  Annual  Conference;  not  only  for  the  defence  of  his  char- 
acter, but  also  for  the  support  of  that  cause  with  which  it  is  con- 
nected, only  to  oppose  which  cause  was  it  at  all  assailed. 

As  no  one  has,  to  my  knowledge,  attempted  this  act  of  justice 
and  kindness  to  his  suffering  character,  I  venture  it,  although  I 
may  in  consequence  thereof,  be  made  to  follow  him. 

In  poceeding  to  give  some  account  of  brother  P's  trial,  it  may 
be  proper  for  me  to  observe  that  he  knew  nothing  of  his  accusation 
until  the  conference  had  been  in  session  five  days;  nor  did  he  know 
who  was  to  be  his  accuser.  It  is  true,  the  presiding  Elder  did  state 
to  him,  some  time  prior  to  the  conference,  that  it  was  likely  there 
would  be  something  said  about  the  pieces  which  he  had  written. 
But  surely  no  one  would  suppose  this  to  be  making  him  acquainted 
with  the  charge  against  which  he  would  have  to  prepare  a  defence. 

When  brother  P's  name  was  called  and  it  was  asked  by  the  Pre- 
sident, is  there  any  thing  against  brother  P.?  Mr.  Shepherd  and 
others  made  some  objections  to  him;  but  in  consequence  of  the 
absence  of  his  presiding  Elder  the  case  was  postponed  until  his  re- 
turn. When  he  appeared  in  his  place  it  was  again  asked,  is  there 
any  thing  against  brother  Pool?  The  presiding  elder  answered,  he 
had  nothing  against  brother  P's  moral  character*,  and  stated  he  be- 
lieved it  stood  fair:  but  referred  at  the  same  time,  to  some  accusa- 
tion which  he  believed  others  intended  to  produce  against  him. 
Several  members  then  stated  the  grounds  of  their  objections  to 
brother  P:,  which  were,  his  agency  in  the  formation  of  a  Union 
Society  in  Harford,  his  address  to  that  Society,  and  some  other 
pieces  which  he  had  written.  Brother  P.  then  stated  that,  as  he 
was  accused,  and  as  what  he  had  said  before  the  Union  Society, 
together  with  the  part  he  had  taken  in  the  formation  of  that  socie- 
ty, were  the  grounds  of  the  accusation,  and  as  he  could  not  know 
the  crime  with  which  he  was  charged,  nor  consider  himself  in  pos- 
session of  the  requisite  means  even  to  commence  a  preparation  for 
his  defence,  until  he  could  have  a  list  of  charges,  he  wished  to  be 
furnished  with  a  copy  of  the  charges  before  the  conference  pro- 
ceeded any  farther  in  his  case.    Mr.  Roszel,  with  others,  argued 


S2( > 


against  the  right  of  brother  P.  to  have  a  written  copy  of  charges, 
or  else  against  the  propriety  of  granting  it,  I  know  not  which. 
Brother  P.  contended  that  his  demand  was  just,  and  that  a  copy 
of  the  charges  was  his  right  in  this  case;  urging  that  it  was  impos- 
sible for  him  to  know  against  what  he  was  to  defend  himself  with- 
out it.  At  this  time  the  president,  bishop  Soule,  gave  it  as  his  opin- 
ion, that,  when  a  brother  comes  up  to  the  conference  with  any  thing 
against  his  moral  character,  it  is  no  more  than  just  and  right  that 
he  should  be  furnished  with  the  charges,  that  he  may  prepare  to  de- 
fend himself  at  the  conference.  But,  said  he,  in  a  case  of  mere 
improprieties,  I  say  in  a  case  of  mere  improprieties  in  a  brother's 
conduct,  I  know  of  no  instance  in  the  usages  of  Methodism,  in 
which  an  accused  member  was  furnished  with  a  copy  of  charges: 
such  a  practice  is  wholly  new  among  us.  These  are  as  nearly  the 
words  of  the  president  as  I  can  recollect. 

After  this  opinion  was  given  the  case  was  referred  to  a  commit- 
tee. The  persons  composing  the  committee  were  Edward  Smith, 
James  Riley,  and  John  Thomas.  This  committee  reported  the  fol- 
lowing day,  that  brother  P.  was  accused  of  immorality,  as  base  as 
that  of  slander.  He  now  asked  for  a  copy  of  the  charges  contain- 
ed in  the  report,  referring  to  the  opinion  of  the  President,  given  the 
day  before,  for  a  support  of  the  justness  of  his  demand.  Mr.  Ros- 
zel  again  opposed  his  having  that  copy,  as  warmly  as  he  had  done 
the  day  before,  and  no  copy  was  obtained. 

The  report,  however,  was  recommitted,  with  the  understanding 
that  the  committee  was  to  make  out  a  list  of  charges,  and  furnish 
brother  P.  with  a  copy.  The  committee  then  asked  and  obtained 
an  additton  of  two:  when  Job  Guest  and  Christopher  Frye  were 
added;  and  obtained  leave  to  sit  during  the  afternoon  session,  and 
retired.  After  sitting  during  the  afternoon,  and  finishing  their  re- 
port, on  the  following  morning,  they  came  into  conference  and  sat 
during  the  morning  session;  but  made  no  attempt  to  report,  until 
the  afternoon.  The  chairman  of  the  committee  then  expressed  his 
readiness  to  report,  and  stated  as  a  reason  why  he  had  not  reported 
in  the  morning,  that  he  had  not  time  to  prepare  a  copy  of  the 
charges  for  brother  P.  before,  holding  the  copy  in  his  hand  at  the 
same  time.  Brother  P.  discovering  that  the  conference  appeared 
disposed  to  act  upon  the  report  before  he  received  the  copy  of 
charges,  asked  a  third  time,  and  on  the  third  day  after  his  case  was 
taken  up,  for  that  copy.  Mr.  Roszel  opposed  his  having  it,  as  he 
had  done  for  two  days  before,  but  with  increased  violence.  Others 
joined  him  in  this  unreasonable  course;  and  the  Rev.  John  Baer, 
went  even  so  far  as  to  propose  taking  up  the  different  items  of 
charge  in  the  report,  and  examine  the  documents,  to  see  whether 
they  could  sustain  the  charges  before  that  copy  was  given  to  brother 
P.  Brother  P.  exclaimed  against  such  sports  with  his  character, 
and  begged  that  the  conference  would  not  permit  it.  At  this  junc- 
ture, Mr.  Emory  rose,  and  expressed  his  disapproval  of  the  course 
which  the  conference  seemed  disposed  to  pursue,  remarking  that  he 
thought  it  appeared  to  be  a  distinct  understanding  with  the  whole 
conference  the  day  before,  that  brother  P.  was  to  be  furnished  with 
a  copy  of  the  charges.    After  this,  the  chairman  of  the  committee 


221 


handed  brother  P.  the  copy  of  charges  which  he  had  held  in  his 
hand  during  the  time  that  Mr.  R.  was  endeavouring  to  prevent 
brother  P.  from  obtaining  it.  I  will  place  that  copy  before  the 
reader. 

Carlisle,  April  16th,  1828. 

Dear  Brother: — The  committee  appointed  to  examine  and  report 
in  your  case,  have  sustained  the  following  items,  and  embodied 
them  in  their  report: 

1st.  That  you  did  take  an  active  part  in  the  formation  of  a  Union 
Society,  on  Harford  circuit,  the  acts  of  which  go  far  to  defame  the 
government  and  administration  of  our  church. 

2d.  That  you  have  neglected  meeting  class  on  the  Sabbath  day, 
and  instead  thereof  gave  lectures  on  the  subject  of  reform. 

3d.  That  you  have  been  actively  engaged  in  circulating  the  Mu- 
tual Rights,  and  defending  the  Union  Society  of  Baltimore  in  their 
defamation  of  this  conference  in  the  case  of  

4th.  That  you  delivered  an  address  to  the  Union  Society  of 
Harford,  in  which  a  highly  inflammatory  attack  was  made,  both 
upon  the  preacher  in  charge  and  the  constituted  authorities  of  our 
church  in  the  city  of  Baltimore. 

5th.  That  you  made  in  said  address  an  unjustifiable  attack  on 
the  episcopacy. 

6th.  That  you  represented  the  authorities  of  the  church  in  Balti- 
more as  conspiring  against  the  rights  and  characters  of  the  citizens 
of  that  place. 

7th.  That  much  of  your  conduct  has  been  in  direct  opposition  to 
the  resolution  of  last  conference,  and  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the 
gospel.  You  should  have  had  notice  sooner,  but  the  committee 
did  not  find  it  until  this  morning. 

Your  brother,  Edward  Smith. 

Brother  W.  C.  Pool. 

After  brother  P.  received  this  copy,  the  secretary  handed  him  a 
copy  of  the  report,  which  is  nearly  the  same  as  the  above,  and  it 
contains  letters  as  marks  referring  to  documents  to  sustain  the 
charges,  I  suppose  in  the  room  of  specifications.  The  report  was 
now  laid  on  the  table,  aud  brother  P.  asked  permission  to  make 
some  remarks  respecting  the  time  of  taking  up  his  case,  but  was 
informed  he  could  do  that  when  the  report  was  called  up.  On  Thurs- 
day in  the  afternoon,  the  report  was  taken  up,  at  which  time  brother 
P.  asked  if  he  was  to  understand  that  in  taking  up  that  report,  the 
conference  had  thereby  determined  to  try  him  on  the  charges  con- 
tained in  it.  Being  answered  by  the  conference  in  the  affirmative, 
he  took  exception  to  their  decision,  and  observed,  were  it  possible, 
he  would  appeal  from  that  decision,  on  the  ground  of  its  being  a 
violation  of  one  of  their  own  rules  recorded  on  the  journal.  He 
claimed  a  reading  of  that  resolution,  hoping  it  might  procure  him 
further  time  to  make  his  defence.  The  secretary  with  others,  ad- 
mitted there  was  such  a  resolution,  but  as  it  was  passed  some  years 
back,  it  would  take  some  time  to  find  it.  From  this  cause,  or  from 
29 


222 

some  other,  which  I  think  it  unnecessary  to  mention,  it  was  not 
found,  and  consequently  it  was  not  read.  The  resolution  referred 
to,  was  intended  originally  to  prevent  any  advantage  being  taken 
of  any  member  of  the  conference,  by  prefering  charges  against 
him  without  first  giving  him  sufficient  notice  of  such  charges,  in 
time  to  make  his  defence.  When  the  effort  of  brother  P.  had  failed 
to  obtain  a  reading  of  the  resolution  above  referred  to,  and  the 
conference  appeared  inclined  to  proceed,  he  stated  something  like 
the  following: — "I  am  entirely  unprepared  to  meet  the  charges. 
The  conference  have  now  been  eight  days  in  session,  and  1  knew 
not  until  yesterday  in  the  afternoon,  against  what  I  was  to  defend 
myself;  and  to-day,  it  is  determined  that  I  shall  be  tried  on  those 
charges,  without  any  further  time  to  prepare  for  a  defence.  There 
are  items  in  the  list  of  charges  which  are  absolutely  false,  and 
which  I  can  prove  to  be  so,  had  I  time  to  return  to  Harford.  Be- 
sides, those  items  which  embrace  things  that  I  acknowledge  I  have 
done  and  said,  make  it  necessary  that  some  further  time  to  explain 
and  defend,  should  be  allowed  me. 

The  president  observed,  addressing  the  conference,  if  brother  P. 
says  he  is  unprepared  to  meet  the  charges,  and  that  there  are 
charges  in  the  report  which  he  can  prove  to  be  false,  if  he  had  time 
to  procure  testimony,  it  would  be  unjust  in  this  conference  to  try 
him  on  those  charges; — I  say  it  would  be  unjust  to  try  him  on 
those  charges.  But,  said  he,  turning  to  brother  P.  Brother  P. 
can  point  out  those  particular  charges  which  he  says  are  false,  and 
which  he  says  he  is  unprepared  to  meet,  and  the  conference  can 
omit  them,  and  proceed  to  trial  on  the  rest.  Whether  this  was 
designed  by  the  president  as  an  ingenious  turn  to  ensnare  the  ac- 
cused, or  not,  I  will  not  pretend  positively  to  assert.  But  to  me, 
it  appeared  to  resemble  nothing  else.  It  did  not,  however,  ensnare 
brother  P.  He  rose  and  referred  the  president  to  the  statements 
which  he  had  before  made  with  respect  to  the  whole  of  the  charges, 
and  again  declared  he  was  unprepared  to  meet  any  of  them;  stat- 
ing that  he  did  not  feel  disposed  to  pursue  the  course  proposed  by 
the  president,  in  pointing  out  any  one  charge,  or  in  submitting  to 
be  tried  on  any,  without  further  time  to  defend  himself;  because 
the  time  allowed  him,  being  only  one  day,  he  could  not  think  was 
sufficient  to  prepare  for  a  defence  against  any  one  of  the  charges. 

After  much  had  been  said  against  granting  him  any  further  time, 
he  observed  he  wished  it  to  be  distinctly  understood,  that  he  did  not 
design  to  treat  the  conference  with  contempt.  But  if  the  confer- 
ence persisted  in  the  determination  to  force  him  to  trial  on  charges 
which  he  had  again  and  again,  said  he  was  unprepared  to  meet,  he 
would  feel  himself  compelled  as  a  last  resort,  to  withdraw  and  let 
the  conference  try  him  in  his  absence.  On  receiving  an  intima- 
tion from  the  conference  of  their  determination  to  proceed,  he 
withdrew,  and  the  conference  entered  upon  the  examination  of 
documents  to  sustain  the  charges.  The  case,  however,  was  not 
finished  until  the  next  day,  Friday,  when  the  following  resolution 
was  adopted,  viz: 


223 


Resolved,  That  Wm.  C.  Pool,  be,  and  he  hereby  is,  expelled 
the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

Having  received  official  notice  of  the  decision,  and  being  in- 
formed that  the  conference  would  meet  again  in  the  evening,  he 
appeared  in  the  conference,  signified  his  intention  to  appeal,  and 
asked  for  a  transcript  of  the  proceedings  in  his  case.  Mr.  Roszel, 
who  had  so  violently  for  three  days  opposed  his  having  a  written 
copy  of  the  charges,  now  argued  against  granting  him  that  tran- 
script. But  some  appeared  to  be  disposed  to  allow  brother  Pool 
a  chance  of  seeing  the  proof  by  which  they  had  sustained  the 
charges.  Mr.  Slicer  moved  the  grant  of  his  request.  Considera- 
ble opposition  was  made  to  the  motion.  Perhaps  some  saw  that 
if  such  a  paper  were  put  into  the  hands  of  brother  P.  the  public 
would  possibly  see  the  whole  amount  of  testimony,  on  which  the 
conference  had  acted,  and  thereby  have  something  more  from 
which  to  form  an  opinion,  than  simply  partial  statements  of  those 
men  who  were  concerned  in  transacting  this  business  with  their 
doors  closed.  Mr.  Emory  rose  and  instructed  the  conference  to 
be  cautious  how  they  acted  in  their  business,  obseving  that  it  was 
not  certain  the  General  Conference  would  admit  the  appeal.  This 
caution  was  well  understood;  for  on  motion  of  Mr.  Roszel,  it  was 
resoved  indefinitely  to  postpone  the  motion  made  by  Mr.  Slicer. 

Thus  brethren,  I  have  given  a  brief  sketch  of  brother  P's  trial, 
and  know  not  how  soon  I  may  be  made  to  follow  him;  but  take 
leave  to  assure  you,  that  I  am  yet  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  A  Minister. 

This  account  of  Rev'd.  William  C.  Pool's  excommunication, 
will  serve  to  shew,  that  he  was  expelled  for  being  an  active  friend 
to  the  cause  of  reform;  so  that  he  and  Rev'd.  Dennis  B.  Dor- 
sey  are  to  be  considered  martyrs  for  the  principle  of  a  lay-repre- 
sentation in  the  legislative  department  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church  government.  The  many  worthies,  who  have  volun- 
tarily withdrawn  themselves  from  the  communion  of  that  church, 
for  the  sake  of  the  same  testimony,  would  have  been  noticed  in 
this  place,  with  suitable  expressions  of  the  high  estimation  in 
which  we  hold  them,  if  it  had  been  practicable  to  obtain  all  their 
names.  But  their  numbers  have  increased  exceedingly,  amount- 
ing to  hundreds.  We  therefore,  can  only  say,  they  have  individ- 
ually acted  a  praise-worthy  part;  and  having  in  a  manner  so  com 
mendably  distinguished  themselves,  they  will  receive  from  their 
brethren  that  just  respect,  which  is  never  withheld  by  men  of  true 
worth,  from  those  who  are  ready  to  forego  interest  or  convenience 
for  the  support  of  principle. 

Those  truly  excellent  men,  who  have  devoted  themselves  to 
the  itinerant  work;  and  especially,  the  heroic  individuals  who  have 
left  the  ranks  of  the  itinerants  where  all  power  is  in  their  hands, 
with  intention  to  unite  themselves  with  the  friends  of  Mutual 
Rights,  are  entitled  to  very  high  consideration. 


224 


CHAPTER  XXX. 

A  difference  of  opinion  no  just  cause  af  discord. 

The  following  essay,  we  wrote  for  the  September  number  of 
Mutual  Rights,  1826.  It  is  reprinted  and  inserted  in  this  place, 
to  shew  what  was  our  disposition  of  mind  and  feeling  towards  our 
old  side  brethren,  at  the  time  when  our  expulsion  was  first  talked 
of  by  them.  We  believe  it  to  be  a  transcript  of  the  temper  of  re- 
formers generally.  Our  friends  of  after  times  ought  to  know  this. 
Those  who  have  read  the  essay,  will  indulge  us  in  giving  to  all  our 
friends  this  point  of  information. 

A  diversity  of  opinion  is  no  just  cause  of  discord. 

The  woman  of  Samaria,  was  greatly  surprised,  that  a  Jew  should 
have  asked,  at  her  hand,  a  drink  of  water.  To  a  liberal  and  en- 
lightened mind,  this  might  seem  to  be  a  strange  thing.  It  would 
have  been  the  mutual  interests  of  the  Jews  and  Samaritans  to  have 
maintained  a  commercial  intercourse.  It  was  a  common  duty  of 
both,  to  have  performed  for  each  other,  those  acts  of  humanity  and 
kindness,  which  constitute  the  bands  of  social  life.  And  yet,  it 
appears,  that  in  all  these  respects,  they  looked  upon  each  other  as 
Barbarians.  "How  is  it,"  said  the  woman,  "that  thou,  being  a 
Jew,  askest  drink  of  me,  who  am  a  woman  of  Samaria? — for  the 
Jews  have  no  dealings  with  the  Samaritans."  This  statement  car- 
ries on  its  face,  an  insinuation  that  the  fault  lay  chiefly  on  the  Jews; 
and  in  addition  to  the  evidence  afforded  by  the  manner  of  the  wo- 
man's reply,  there  are  considerations  which  seem  to  favour  that  sen- 
timent. The  Jews  thought  themselves  superior  in  point  of  privi- 
lege. Possibly  they  claimed  precedence,  because  they  were  of  the 
old  establishment.  Be  this  as  it  may,  there  is  a  general  propensity 
in  mankind,  to  disagree  after  the  same  manner,  when  there  is  no 
cause  for  it,  except  only,  that  they  have  different  sentiments  of 
religion,  or  are  associated  with  a  people  of  a  different  denomina- 
tion, or  think  differently  on  the  subject  of  church  government. 
Those  who  once  seemed  to  be  unanimous  in  their  religious  opin- 
ions, and  of  one  accord  as  to  the  system  of  church  polity,  by  which 
they  had  been  united;  have,  nevertheless,  indulged  in  this  propen- 
sity toward  their  brethren,  because  questions  have  arisen  among 
them,  about  which  they  differ.  And  this  is  the  unhappy  state  of 
things,  however  conscientious  the  party  may  be,  with  whom  the 
questions  originated.  This  evil,  therefore,  is  not  confined  to  Jews 
and  Samaritans.  It  prevails  among  christians,  and  with  strong  symp- 
toms of  hatred,  although  the  first  principles  of  reason  and  the  clear- 
est precepts  of  revelation,  discountenance  and  condemn  it.  Those 
who  are  chargeable  with  this  unjustifiable  conduct,  seem  to  expect, 
that  all  others  should  think  as  they  do,  and  subscribe  to  their  prin- 
ciples and  persuasions.  And  when  this  expectation  fails,  their 
affection  cools,  and  their  good  will  abates  in  proportion  to  the 


225 


supposed  difference.  If  any  man  presume  to  judge  for  himself 
and  choose  his  own  way  of  thinking,  he  is  looked  upon,  by  them, 
with  a  suspicious  eye,  and  he  forfeits  some  portion,  at  least,  of 
their  esteem.  It  may  happen  that  he  will  become  an  object  of 
their  high  displeasure,  and  be  treated  as  an  enemy.  Why?  What 
evil  has  he  done?  He  has  followed  his  own  judgment  and  not  that 
of  others.  And  is  this  a  reason  which  can  justify  such  conduct? 
If  not,  why  do  men  claiming  respect,  act  in  such  a  manner?  Will 
any  one  say  it  is  their  love  of  truth,  and  their  zealous  concern  for 
the  support  of  truth,  which  impels  them?  A  sincere  and  genuine 
love  of  truth,  would  produce  very  different  effects.  If  it  were 
even  admitted,  that  the  opinions  of  old-side  brethren  were  in  all 
respects,  good  and  true,  and  of  course  that  it  would  be  right  that 
they  should  be  maintained  and  propagated,  how  would  this  be  best 
accomplished?  By  ill  will,  hatred,  injurious  reproaches,  or  by  love, 
good-will,  kind  usage  and  gentle  treatment?  If  either  party  would 
recommend  their  opinions,  ought  they  not  to  endeavour  to  procure 
them  a  fair  hearing?  Ought  not  each,  at  the  least,  to  appear  to  be 
well  affected  towards  those  whom  they  are  desirous  to  convince? 
Whosoever  has  a  real  regard  for  truth,  and  is  honestly  desirous  to 
promote  its  interests,  will  correspond  with  men  of  different  opin- 
ions, fairly  and  friendly.  He  will  evince  a  spirit  of  humanity,  equity 
and  candour.  He  will  not  exasperate  their  minds  by  any  expres- 
sion of  hatred  or  contempt,  but  will  endeavour  to  conciliate  their 
good  will,  and  cultivate  their  esteem,  by  a  willing  discharge  of  all 
such  good  offices,  as  may  reasonably  be  expected  from  him.  He 
cannot  believe  that  animosity  will  succeed,  when  argument  proves 
ineffectual,  or  that  reproaches  will  have  a  better  effect  than  fair 
reasoning.  "The  wrath  of  man  worketh  not  the  righteousness  of 
God."  In  fact,  it  is  the  most  improper  instrument  in  the  world, 
for  the  maintenance  of  truth. 

To  publish  for  the  benefit  of  others  what  either  party  conscien- 
tiously believes  to  be  the  truth,  if  it  be  done  in  a  fair  and  amicable 
way,  is  undoubtedly  avreal  service  to  the  public.  But  strife  and 
calumny,  and  uncharitable  proceedings,  are  the  bane  of  human 
society.  It  is  right  and  proper  that  the  one  should  be  done;  the 
other  cannot  be  done  without  great  wickedness. 

These  views  appear  to  be  so  clear  and  conclusive,  that  it  cannot 
be  saying  too  much,  to  affirm,  that  every  man  of  good  sense,  and 
good  religion,  must  admit  that  diversity  of  opinion,  is  in  no  case 
a  just  cause  of  discord.  And  therefore,  whenever  a  feeling  of 
hostility  is  produced  by  such  difference  of  opinion,  it  never  can  be 
ascribed  to  any  cause  or  principle  that  is  praiseworthy,  no  not  even 
that  is  innocent.  The  plain  truth  is,  that  it  springs  from  pride  and 
immoderate  self-love.  Men  become  so  swollen  with  a  high  con- 
ceit of  their  own  opinions,  that  every  opposition  gives  them  pain, 
and  their  opponents  become  objects  of  their  displeasure.  And  this 
spirit  has  produced  all  those  rigorous  judgements  and  rugged  deal- 
ings, which  have  so  often  dishonoured  our  holy  religion,  and 
brought  reproach  upon  human  nature. 


226 


Reflections  such  as  these,  presented  themselves  after  having  read 
brother  A.  Shinn's  Address  to  the  readers  of  the  Mutual  Rights, 
vol.  iii.  page  12:  where  he  says,  "Therefore  we  do  expect  punish- 
ment, in  some  form  or  other,"  &c.  "whether  we  are  to  be  punish- 
ed by  neglect,  or  contempt,  or  ridicule,  or  suspension,  or  expulsion, 
remains  to  be  explained  hereafter;  but  every  man  among  us  may 
prepare  himself,  either  to  give  up  the  cause  of  reform,  or  to  suffer," 
&c.  And  will  this  prediction  be  verified?  Is  it  possible  that  a 
body  of  men,  distinguished  for  apparent  zeal  for  God,  can  do  this? 
They  will  have  their  difficulties  to  encounter,  if  they  make  the  at- 
tempt. We  know  there  are  some,  who  have  shown  themselves 
willing  to  begin.  But  fearing  consequences,  have  made  their  dis- 
positions known,  as  yet,  chiefly  by  the  expression  of  wishes,  that 
we  would  go  out  of  the  church.  This,  of  course,  would  save  ne- 
cessity of  turning  us  out.  But  these  are  hasty  and  inconsiderate 
men.  Those  who  understand  human  nature  better,  and  are  better 
prepared  to  judge  of  the  probable  effect  of  measures  on  the  public 
mind,  will  consider  well  before  they  begin  to  punish  us  openly. 
And  every  good  christian  among  them,  will  refuse  to  punish  us  in 
any  manner.  A  good  citizen,  much  less,  a  true  follower  of  the 
meek  and  lowly  Saviour  of  the  world,  could  not  partake  in  such  a 
work  of  barbarity  ?  By  the  law  of  nature,  as  well  as  by  all  the  rules 
which  reason  and  religion  have  established,  every  man  has  a  right 
to  good  will,  whatever  maybe  his  character  or  conduct; — he  is  ever 
entitled  to  esteem,  till  he  forfeits  it  by  misbehaviour  and  demerit. 
— Therefore,  whosoever  entertains  a  hard  thought,  or  an  unfavour- 
able opinion  of  any  man,  without  good  and  sufficient  cause,  is 
manifestly  "unjust  and  injurious."  And  we  would  ask  the  favour 
of  every  good  man  of  sound  understanding,  to  consider  the  follow- 
ing question,  and  answer  it  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own 
conscience.  Can  any  disagreement  or  difference  of  opinion  on  the 
subject  of  church  government,  be  a  just  ground  for  dislike,  or  a  real 
forfeiture  of  esteem?  This  question  cannot  admit  of  an  affirmative  an- 
swer. For  no  honest  man's  opinion  on  this  or  any  other  subject, 
which  admits  of  a  difference  of  opinion,  is  in  his  own  power  or  sub- 
ject to  his  own  will.  He  must  believe  and  conclude  as  he  can.  If  he 
judge  at  all,  he  is  under  the  necessity  of  judging  according  to  the 
evidence  of  things,  as  they  appear  to  his  own  apprehension.  He 
may  err  in  his  judgment.  So  may  all  men.  It  pertains  to  human 
frailty.  If  it  be  said,  he  may  be  dishonest.  That  can  be  known 
only  to  God  and  his  own  conscience; — and  charity,  that  is,  Chris- 
tianity, thinketh  no  evil.  The  law  which  requires  every  man  "to 
do  to  others  as  he  would  have  others  to  do  unto  him,"  makes  it 
obligatory  on  him  to  admit,  that  other  men  use  their  faculties,  and 
exercise  their  judgments,  as  fairly  and  uprightly  as  he  does  himself, 
and  still  that  they  may  differ  widely  from  him  in  opinion.  Nothing 
else  is  to  be  expected  among  men.  We  differ  from  our  old  side 
brethren,  and  what  is  the  offence  which  we  have  committed? 
What  is  the  cause  of  blame?  If  we  have  carefully  sought  after 
the  truth,  and  then  sincerely  followed  the  best  light  we  could  get, 
we  are  innocent  in  the  sight  of  God,  and  are  secure  of  his  accep- 


227 


tance;  even  if  our  conclusions  were  greatly  erroneous.    And  shall 
men,  shall  our  brethren,  be  less  easily  satisfied?    Will  they  take 
offence,  when  none  is  given  nor  intended?    Our  thoughts  are  not 
as  their  thoughts — our  judgment  in  regard  to  church  govern- 
ment is  not  conformable  to  theirs.    And  is  it  true,  that  we  have 
therefore  incurred  their  ill-opinions,  their  indignation,  their  cen- 
sures?   Do  they,  therefore,  condemn  us  without  mercy,  and  are 
they,  therefore,  ready  to  punish  us?    They  might  with  as  much 
propriety,  quarrel  with  us,  because  we  have  different  looks,  differ- 
ent features,  as  because  we  have  different  opinions.    Our  features 
are  the  work  of  our  Maker's  hand,  and  our  opinions  are  the  result 
of  the  evidence  and  the  reasonings  on  the  subject,  as  they  have 
been  presented  to  our  consideration.    It  may  be  said,  perhaps, 
that  we  might  have  been  satisfied;  we  might  have  refused  to  inves- 
tigate; we  might  have  shunned  the  evidence,  by  refusing  to  read 
or  hear  those  reasonings.    And  will  our  good  brethren  say,  it 
would  have  been  more  compatible  with  all  the  principles  and  con- 
siderations, which  are  implied  in  a  proper  sense  of  character  and 
true  worth,  to  have  closed  our  eyes  against  the  light?    We  think 
not.    Many  of  them  are  unwilling  to  hear  us,  and  refuse  to  read 
our  papers.    We  are  bound  to  believe  they  honestly  think  it  right, 
and  their  best  way.    We  think  it  right  and  our  best  way,  to  read, 
inquire,  and  inform  ourselves  on  church  government,  as  well  as  on 
any  other  subject  in  which  we  are  interested.    And  we  are  very 
confident  that  candid  and  enlightened  men,  will  say,  our  choice 
and  conduct  is  more  noble,  in  as  much  as  it  is  more  like  that  of 
the  Bereans.     Perhaps  they  think  it  their  privilege  to  dictate  to 
us,  in  this  particular.    Have  we  not  as  good  a  right  to  dictate  to 
them?    If  not,  then  their  opinions  are  entitled  to  the  proud  dis- 
tinction of  being  the  standard  for  all  the  world.    But  we  say  they 
are  wrong,  and  we  are  willing,  nay,  we  labour  to  shew  them  a  rea- 
son.   They  say  we  are  wrong,  and  neither  answer  our  arguments, 
nor  offer  any  in  support  of  their  own  pretensions.    And  when  this 
is  known,  and  known  it  will  be,  is  it  possible  that  even  the  most 
bigotted  will  undertake  to  punish  us?    Brother  Shinn,  perhaps, 
may  know  more  about  men  in  power,  than  we  do,  and  he  thinks  we 
must  give  up  the  work  of  reform  or  prepare  to  suffer  for  it.  There 
are  none  more  ready  to  meet  the  fate  of  faithful  reforms,  than  we 
are.    At  the  same  time,  however,  we  are  determined  to  make  it  as 
difficult  as  possible  to  the  lovers  of  punishment,  to  indulge  in  their 
wishes.    In  the  most  perfect  accordance  with  Mr.  Shinn's  deter- 
mination to  appeal  to  the  public,  we  also  feel  assured,  that  the 
people  of  these  United  States  will  approve  our  struggle;  and  there- 
fore, if  those  who  have  the  power,  should  undertake  to  punish  us, 
the  good  sense  of  the  people  will  avenge  our  wrong,  and  the  in- 
tended punishment  will  recoil  upon  themselves  with  more  than 
double  effect. 


228 


CHAPTER  XXXI. 

Concluding  Remarks. 

The  reader  has  now  an  opportunity  to  make  a  proper  estimate 
of  the  extracts  from  the  Mutual  Rights  which  were  read  before  the 
Quarterly  Meeting  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  Baltimore,  as  the  testimony  of  the  prosecutors,  in  support  of 
their  charges  against  us.  The  Agent  in  his  Narrative  and  Defence, 
says,  "from  the  extracts  which  we  shall  give  from  the  Mutual 
Rights,  it  will  be  shown"  that  they  have  "impugned  the  motives  of 
our  venerable  bishops  and  our  itinerant  ministers,  with  unrelenting 
severity — and  accused  them  without  the  shadow  of  truth."  Can  any 
of  our  impartial  readers  believe  this?  The  writers  were  careful  to 
avoid  being  personal?  In  fact,  they  could  not  have  been  less  per- 
sonal, and  have  done  justice  to  their  respective  subjects.  He  says 
also,  that  from  the  extracts,  &,c.  it  will  be  shown  that  the  bishops 
are  represented  to  the  world,  as  usurpers; — as  tyrants  and  despots, 
lording  it  over  God's  heritage — as  exercising  an  arbitrary  authority, 
which  was  at  first  surreptitiously  obtained,  and  which  has  been  per- 
petuated by  printing  and  publishing  a  falsehood  in  the  preface  to 
our  book  of  discipline,  and  by  forbidding  the  people  to  inquire 
into  the  truth  of  the  affair."  All  such  imputations  are  made  with- 
out avoidable  personality; — explanations  are  given  of  the  intended 
extent  of  their  applications;  and,  exceptions  are  furnished  in  fa- 
vour of  the  men,  at  the  same  time  that  their  government  is  impugn- 
ed. And  particularly,  our  complaints  respecting  the  original  as- 
sumptions of  power,  are  carefully  qualified  and  softened,  with  in- 
tention to  save  the  feelings  of  present  incumbents. 

The  extracts,  when  read  in  their  proper  places,  so  as  to  maintain 
their  connexions,  and  when  examined  in  view  of  the  circumstances 
and  occasions  which  led  to  their  production,  must  forever  stand 
justified  in  the  estimation  of  disinterested  good  sense.  And  yet 
such  was  the  effect  of  the  Agent's  garbling,  or  so  great  was  the 
prejudice  of  the  members  of  the  Quarterly  Meeting  Conference, 
that  although  a  majority  of  them  had  never  read  the  Mutual  Rights; 
upon  the  bare  reading  of  the  extracts,  they  unanimously  voted  our 
expulsion!! 

These  extracts  together  with  the  explanations  and  comments  of 
doctor  Bond  and  Mr.  Hanson,  in  justification  of  the  prosecutions, 
constitute  the  Narrative  and  Defence.  Upon  this  Narrative  and 
Defence,  the  Baltimore  Annual  Conference,  and  the  General  Con- 
ference must  have  relied  in  passing  all  those  unfeeling  and  unjusti- 
fiable resolutions,  which  they  adopted  in  respect  to  our  expulsions. 
And  as  the  members  of  the  Quarterly  Meeting  Conference  unani- 
mously voted  our  expulsion,  although  a  majority  of  them  had  not 
read  the  Mutual  Rights,  at  all,  in  course  without  a  proper  acquain- 
tance with  the  subject;  may  we  not  conclude,  that  the  Annual  and 
General  Conferences,  in  like  manner,  without  further  investigation, 
acted  upon  the  decision  of  the  Quarterly  Conference?    Or  what 


229 


amounts  to  the  same  thing,  the  two  superior  Conferences  acted 
upon  the  authority  of  the  Narrative  and  Defence.  Their  organ, 
Mr.  Emory,  in  his  publications  on  the  subject  gives  indubitable 
evidence,  that  the  Narrative  and  Defence  is  considered  by  him,  to 
be  an  infallible  record  of  the  transactions  of  which  it  treats.  But 
we  have  demonstrated,  that  this  work  is  disingenuous; — that  it  pre- 
sents irresistible  evidence  of  chicanery,  in  three  important  par- 
ticulars. 

1st.  The  extracts  are  garbled  so  that  they  convey  a  meaning, 
very  different  from  that  intended  by  the  writers  of  them. 

2d.  They  are  distorted  by  comments  in  direct  opposition  to  the 
true  intent  and  meaning  of  the  writers,  whose  papers  they  affect  to 
explain. 

3d.  The  garbled  extracts  accompanied  by  the  distortions  of  the 
Agent,  are  all  jumbled  together,  without  regard  to  dates  or  circum- 
stances, with  intention  to  induce  an  opinion  in  the  minds  of  his 
readers,  that  all  those  publications  had  appeared  offensive  as  he  re- 
presents them,  before  the  patience  and  christian  meekness  of  the 
constituted  authorities  of  the  church  were  worn  out,  so  as  to  permit 
the  angry  passions  of  our  prosecutors  to  expel  us. 

Our  readers  will  now  understand  how*'greatly  deficient  in  truth, 
in  brotherly  love,  and  in  fair  dealing  the  Narrative  and  Defence  is: 
and  will  not  believe  that  we  were  expelled  for  being  the  personal 
calumniators  of  the  bishops  and  travelling  preachers.  They  will 
know  that  a  fear  of  our  ultimate  success  in  the  work  of  reform, 
and  a  determination  to  rid  the  church  of  a  work  so  offensive  to 
clerical  ambition,  was  the  true  cause  of  the  shameful  policy  which, 
we  think,  we  have  now  fully  developed  and  satisfactorily  exposed. 


30 


APPENDIX 


Bishop  Asbury's  Life. 

We  were  much  surprised  in  iooking  over  an  article,  entitled 
"Bishop  Asbury's  Life,"  in  the  Methodist  Magazine  and  Quarter- 
ly Review  of  January,  1831. 

In  a  quarterly  critique,  we  had  been  accnstomed  to  expect  en- 
lightened observations  upon  important  circumstances,  connected 
with  the  general  welfare,  or  entertaining  and  useful  reviews  of  the 
different  new  publications,  calculated  to  affect  the  taste,  morals  or 
intelligence  of  a  community.  Hence  arose  our  surprise,  that,  in- 
stead of  attending  to  these  grave  matters,  the  "Methodist  Maga- 
zine" should  lay  itself  open  to  the  charge,  of  being  an  invidious 
review  of  private  character.  The  manifest  object  of  the  article  al- 
luded to,  (which  takes  up  a  large  portion  of  the  number,)  is  to  de- 
grade in  public  estimation,  the  character  of  a  private  individual.  It 
will  probably  be  alleged  that,  it  was  written  in  self-justification: 
but,  besides  that  a  Quarterly  Review  is  not  a  fit  arena  for  such  self- 
advocacy,  the  discriminative  reader  will  perceive  that,  we  speak 
not  unadvisedly,  when  we  impute  other  and  discreditable  motives 
to  the  Editors  of  that  Periodical.  They  profess  to  give  a  correct 
statement  of  the  circumstances,  connected  with  a  projected  biogra- 
phy of  Mr.  Asbury;  but,  they  so  cunningly  interlard  it  with  selfish 
impressions  and  suitable  inferences  that,  while  themselves  are  re- 
presented pure  and  faultless,  the  whole  character,  moral  and  intel- 
lectual, of  the  Biographer  is  involved  in  degradation.  From  the 
statement,  abstractly,  the  biographer  can  suffer  nothing.  Few, 
however,  who  read  the  "Magazine,"  will,  perhaps,  have  patience, 
or  candour,  or  discernment  to  divest  the  simple  narrative  of  facts 
of  the  misleading  remarks  interwrought  with  it.  For,  the  truth 
is,  they  have  had  neither  the  ingenuousness  nor  courage  to  come 
forth  openly,  and  directly  accuse  doctor  Jennings,  (the  biographer 
alluded  to,)  with  lack  of  honesty  and  imbecility  of  intellect:  they 
knew  that  falsehood  would  be  written  too  plainly  on  the  front  of 
the  charge.  But,  with  such  subtlety  is  their  statement  managed, 
that  a  superficial  reader  is  inevitably  led  to  infer  the  justness  of  such 
an  imputation. 

Let  it  then  be  distinctly  understood  that  two  charges  are  insinu- 
ated against  doctor  Jennings: 

1st.  Mental  incompetency  to  perform  the  task  of  composing  a 
biography. 

•2ndiy.    Rctainance  of  money  to  which  he  has  no  just  claim. 

We  shall  attempt  to  vindicate  him  from  both  these  imputations; 
and  shall  notice,  likewise,  the  true  cause  of  failure  in  the  projected 
biography  of  Mr.  Asbury.    Preparatory  to  our  argument,  we  will 


231 


give  a  brief  history  of  the  circumstances  that  have- led  to  this  vindi- 
cation. For  the  sake  of  comparison,  an  abstract  shall  be  given  of 
the  statements  of  both  parties. 

It  seems  that,  in  the  July  Number  of  1830,  the  editors  of  the 
"Quarterly"  took  occasion  to  express  their  regret  that,  though  a 
life  of  Mr.  Asbury  had  been  projected — a  biographer  employed, 
and  a  considerable  sum  of  money  expended,  the  work  had  never 
been  produced. — "The  gentleman,  engaged  to  furnish  it,  failed  in 
the  execution."  Doctor  Jennings,  (the  gentleman  referred  to,) 
thus  publicly  mentioned  in  a  way  calculated  to  affect  injuriously 
his  reputation,  deemed  it  justifiable  to  give  an  exposition  of  the 
circumstances  of  the  case. 

Without  reference  to  date,  of  which  he  had  not  an  exact  re- 
membrance, he  states  the  conference  to  have  passed  a  resolution 
that  Mr.  Asbury's  life  should  be  written.  A  committee  was,  here- 
upon, appointed,  to  carry  the  resolution  into  effect.  Mr.  Roszel, 
whom  doctor  Jennings  supposed  to  be  chairman  of  the  committee, 
waited  upon  the  doctor  with  a  request  that  he  would  undertake  the 
work.  After  some  deliberation,  he  consented,  on  condition  that, 
the  committee  should  furnish  such  documents  as  would  be  neces- 
sary, and  especially,  such  facts  and  anecdotes,  as  would  be  more 
particularly  requisite  to  compensate  for  want  of  personal  knowl- 
edge: on  condition,  also,  that,  when  all  the  materials  should  have 
been  selected,  the  committee  should  be  present  to  assist  in  their 
selection  and  arrangement.  The  reasonableness  of  the  terms,  was 
admitted  by  Mr.  Roszel,  who  promised  they  should  be  complied 
with.* 

Mr.  McKendree,  who  alone  had  access  to  Mr.  Asbury's  papers; 
was  absent  about  that  time,  on  a  tour  of  duty.  Nearly,  if  not  quite 
a  whole  year  elapsed,  before  an  opportunity  offered  of  requesting 
from  him,  what  materials  he  could  obtain: — and  not  a  single  scrawl 
was  furnished.  Mr.  McKendree,  at  length,  returned,  but  was  able 
to  furnish  nothing  useful,  except  the  journal,  and  this,  too,  after 
much  delay.  To  add  to  the  biographer's  embarrassment,  Mr.  Hol- 
lingsworth,  the  gentleman  from  whom  Mr.  McKendree  had  procu- 
red the  journal,  soon  called  and  made  known  to  doctor  Jennings 
Mr.  Asbury's  objection  to  any  attempt  to  publish  his  biography, 
and  the  pledge  which  he  had  given  for  the  publication  of  Mr.  As- 
bury's journal,  stating,  that,  whatever  use  the  doctor  might  wish  to 
make  of  it,  he  must  lose  no  time;  as  he  was  determined  to  fulfil  his 
engagement  with  Mr.  Asbury,  who  wished  it  to  be  published  as  soon 
as  practicable. 

The  journal  was  found  to  be  deficient  in  many  materials,  requi- 
site to  the  composition  of  a  respectable  biography;  of  which  the 
doctor  repeatedly  informed  Mr.  Roszel:  adding  that,  unless  further 
information  could  be  procured,  the  attempt  at  a  biography  would 
be  abortive.    Hereupon,  at  the  instance  of  Mr.  Roszel,  a  general 

♦Doctor  Jennings  at  that  time  did  not  know  who  were  the  remaining  mem- 
bers of  the  committee;  he  saw  none  of  them  but  Mr.  Roszel. 


232 


call  was  made  upon  the  friends  of  Mr.  Asbury  throughout  the  Uni- 
ted States,  to  furnish  whatever  might  be  useful.*  One  annual  con- 
ference after  another  passed  by,  and  nothing  further  was  supplied, 
except  a  small  bundle  of  papers,  of  little  value  to  the  intended 
work;  one  small  package  sent  from  the  west  by  Mr.  Thomas  L. 
Douglas,  and  one  letter  from  South  Carolina.! 

Throughout  the  time  of  these  delays,  Dr.  Jennings  states,  that, 
"he  had  written  out  scraps  and  paragraphs  in  prospect  of  various 
topics,  which  he  intended  to  notice  in  the  contemplated  work; 
amounting  to  several  hundred  pages:  purposing,  when  the  neces- 
sary materials  should  be  collected,  to  submit  his  scraps,  together 
with  the  materials,  to  the  judgment  of  the  committee;  expecting 
their  assistance  in  selecting  and  arranging,  according  to  the  un- 
derstanding with  Mr.  Roszel." 

Having  read  over  the  journal  and  written  many  extracts  from  it, 
he  considered  it  necessary  to  bring  the  matter  to  a  close.  Wait- 
ing upon  the  conference,  at  Alexandria,  he  requested  a  meeting  of 
the  committee;  expecting  none  other  than  the  committee,  with 
one  of  whose  members  he  had  made  his  engagement.  A  com- 
mittee met  by  order  of  the  conference  and  sent  for  the  MS.; 
neither  inviting  nor  summoning  him  to  attend  in  person.  They 
proceeded  to  read,  examine,  and  take  notes  on  the  MS.  as  if  it 
had  been  submitted,  ready  for  publication: — his  best  effort  as  the 
author  of  Mr.  Asbury's  life.  They  finally  adjourned,  after  having 
rejected  the  MS.  and  directed  the  secretary  to  serve  the  Biographer 
with  a  copy  of  the  notes.  Dr.  Jennings  deemed  these  proceedings 
as  unjust  as  they  were  offensive,  and  determined  to  have  nothing 
more  to  do  with  the  business. 

Subsequently,  however,  the  original  committee  assembled  and 
invited  his  attendance.  He  narrated  to  them,  all  the  foregoing 
facts  and  circumstances,  not  omitting  to  state  the  conditions  on 
which  he  had  engaged  to  write  the  Biography.  He  informed  them, 
likewise,  of  the  feelings  with  which  he  viewed  their  late  proceed- 
ings. The  committee,  then,  inquired,  if  he  were  willing  to  re- 
sume the  work.  He  answered,  that,  as  they  had  all  been  com- 
mitted to  the  Methodist  public,  and  community  at  large;  he  would 
redeem  the  common  pledge  on  the  same  conditions,  originally 
agreed  to  by  him  and  Mr.  Roszel.  The  committee  unanimously 
assented,  and  adjourned,  sine  die.  From  that  day  till  the  General 
Conference,  he  heard  nothing  further  from  them;  nor  did  he  re- 
ceive any  additional  materials,  except  about  five  or  six  letters 
brought  by  Mr.  Emory  from  England. 

Meantime,  at  the  peremptory  request  of  Mr.  Hollingsworth,  the 
manuscript  journal  was  sent  to  the  Book-room,  at  New  York,  for 
publication.    Hereupon,  the  Biographer  had  an  interview  with 

*Mr.  Roszel  was  without  blame  as  to  that  part  of  the  business. 

-{-Doctor  Jennings  considers  Mr.  Kmory's  insinuation  as  to  the  possibillty 
of  other  supplies  of  materials  than  those  above  stated,  as  being  very  much  out 
of  the  way.  Let  him  who  furnished  any  thing  more  come  forward  and  say 
what  it  was. 


•233 


Mr.  Soule;  and  they,  both,  were  unanimously  of  the  opinion  that, 
the  materials  furnished,  were  entirely  insufficient.*  And  finally  a 
messenger  from  the  General  Conference  of  1824,  called  for  the 
few  remaining  papers;  and  there  ended  the  business. 

While  the  transaction  was  pending,  however,  Dr.  Jennings 
states  that,  Mr.  Roszel  presented  him  with  $200. 

The  inferences,  correctly  deducible  from  this  statement,  if  true, 
are  that,  the  Baltimore  Annual  Conference  is  not  blameable,  seeing 
it  made  all  due  exertion  to  furnish  materials;  that  there  is  nothing 
to  sustain  an  impeachment  of  the  Biographer's  character,  in  as 
much  as  the  want  of  matter  appears  to  be  the  only  cause,  why  a 
sufficient  Biography  was  not  composed;  and  that  the  judgment  or 
justice  of  the  committee  of  examination  stands  implicated,  be- 
cause, they  unreasonably  passed  their  opinion  upon  a  MS.  sub- 
mitted for  other  purposes,  as  if  the  author  contemplated  its  imme- 
diate publication. 

A  replication  to  this  statement,  appeared  in  the  article  in  the 
January  number  of  the  Quarterly,  to  which  we  have  alluded.  It 
professes  to  be  a  brief,  veracious  and  complete  history  of  the  bu- 
siness. 

According  to  this,  the  subject  of  Bishop  Asbury's  life,  being  first 
introduced  in  the  Annual  Conference  of  1817,  held  at  Baltimore, 
a  Biography  was  projected,  and  a  committee  appointed  to  super- 
intend the  work  and  employ  a  compiler.  The  committee,  con- 
sisting of  Messrs.  N.  Reed,  S.  G.  Roszel,  J.  Wells,  W.  Ryland, 
and  Dr.  H.  Wilkins,  [through  Mr.  Roszel]  subsequently  employed 
Dr.  Jennings. 

At  the  Annual  Conference  in  Baltimore,  in  the  spring  of  1818, 
Dr.  Jennings  came  before  the  conference,  and  gave,  they  think,  a 
verbal  outline  of  his  plan,  which  was  favorably  received. 

At  the  Annual  Conference  in  Alexandria,  (D.  C.)  in  March, 
1819,  Dr.  Jennings  appeared  in  person  before  the  conference,  and 
made  a  verbal  communication  of  his  "successful  progress"  in  the 
Biography.  Inferring  from  the  resolution  immediately  passed,  the 
conference  seemed  to  be  under  the  impression,  that  the  MS.  was 
submitted,  ready  for  the  press.  The  resolution  alluded  to,  was 
the  appointment  of  a  committee  of  seven,  to  examine  the  work 
with  a  view  to  its  immediate  publication.  Messrs.  Reed,  Roszel, 
Wells,  Burch,  Waugh,  Griffith,  and  Emory,  constituted  this  com- 
mittee. 

Meantime,  the  committee  appointed  to  collect  materials,  &c. 
assembled  on  the  5th  of  May,  1819,  for  the  purpose  of  fixing  the 
compensation,  to  be  made  to  Dr.  Jennings,  for  his  services  in 
writing  the  Life  of  Bishop  Asbury.  After  an  interchange  of 
opinion  on  the  case,  it  was  resolved  "to  furnish,  at  present,  the 
sum  of  $250,  to  Dr.  Jennings,  in  part  for  compensation  for  his 
services  in  the  above  work.  According  to  a  subsequent  statement 
made  by  them,  he  received  only  $225. 

•And  the  more  especially  so,  as  a  Biography  written  with  no  other  infor- 
mation than  the  journal  afforded,  would  be  so  completely  forestalled  by  the 
publication  of  the  journal. 


234 


On  the  15th  of  June,  1819,  the  committee  of  examination  met 
in  Baltimore:  present,  Nelson  Reed,  Joshua  Wells,  Stephen  G. 
Roszel,  Thomas  Burch,  Alfred  Griffith,  J.  Emory,  and  B.  Waugh. 
In  opposition  to  the  Biographer's  direct  statement,  that  the  com- 
mittee sent  for  his  MS.  they  say  it  is  their  ,, impression,"  that  he 
had  previously  delivered  it  to  a  member  of  the  committee.  Their 
"impression"  would  have  been  correct  if  they  had  added,  "by  re- 
quest of  the  member."  They  read  the  MS.  with  great  care,  de- 
voting more  than  a  week  to  it,  in  successive  sittings  of  six  hours* 
per  day.  They  say,  the  examination'  was  conducted  with  all  the 
"attention,  and  fidelity,  and  candor"  of  which  they  were  capable. 
They  made  exact  minutes  of  all  their  criticisms,  with  a  view  of 
furnishing  the  Biographer  with  them,  to  "afford  him  an  opportunity 
to  avail  himself  of  them,  if  he  chose;  and  to  reconsider,  remodel, 
or  rewrite  his  work,  if,  on  reviewing  it  with  the  committee's  sug- 
gestions, he  should  think  it  possible,  to  make  it  such  a  Life  of 
Bishop  Asbury.  as  would  be  at  all  acceptable  to  the  Methodist 
community  and  the  public.  They  admit,  that  they  neither  "in- 
vited nor  summoned"  Dr.  Jennings  to  attend  in  person,  nor  asked 
for  note,  comment,  nor  explanation. 

After  a  second  reading  of  the  MS.  and  an  examination  of  their 
minutes,  notes,  and  criticisms,  it  was  resolved  that  the  following 
question  be  propounded,  and  the  sense  of  the  committee  be  taken 
upon  it: — "can  we  now  recommend  the  publication  of  the  MS. 
which  has  been  submitted  to  this  committee? — Their  unanimous 
answer  was — No! — "and  let  it  be  remembered,"  say  they,  "that 
the  work  was  in  truth  a  folio  manuscript  book,  carefully  bound, 
regularly  paged,  divided  into  chapters,  and  fairly  written  out  for  the 
press."  They  marvel  greatly,  therefore,  that  the  Biographer  denies 
it  was  presented  for  publication.  We  shall  have  occasion  to  notice 
this  particularly,  hereafter.  We  have  seen  the  "book,"  read  every 
"chapter"  and  every  line,  and  can  easily  explain  with  what  reason 
doctor  Jennings  denies  what  they  wish  to  be  believed. 

After  the  general  vote  of  the  committee  had  been  taken,  the 
particular  objections  of  each  member  were  required; — to  serve  as 
the  basis  of  a  report  to  be  prepared  for  the  conference,  by  a  sub- 
committee. The  report,  accordingly  was  framed,  and  it  was 
unanimously  adopted  by  the  general  committee. 

At  the  close  of  their  sittings,  they  directed  the  secretary  "to  in- 
form doctor  Jennings  of  their  final  judgment,  with  the  reasons 
thereof;  as  also,  to  return  the  MS.  and  inform  him,  that  he  should 
be  furnished  with  a  copy  of  the  notes  of  the  committee,  if  he  re- 
quested." They  believe  a  copy  of  the  notes,  in  fact,  was  never 
either  asked  or  "served." 

In  consequence  of  information  from  the  committee  "for  the  col- 
lection of  materials,"  &c.  that  doctor  Jennings  was  disposed  to 
resume  and  finish  the  Life  of  Mr.  Asbury,  the  examining  com- 
mute held  another  meeting,  just  previously  to  the  session  of  the 
Baltimore  Annual  Conference,  in  March,  1820.  They  then  de- 
termined, influenced  ostensibly  by  motives  of  friendship  for  doctor 
Jennings,  to  withhold  the  report,  originally  prepared,  and  frame 


235 


another  and  more  favourable  one,  to  be  presented  to  the  conference. 
The  amount  of  it  was — it  was  their  opinion  that  the  MS.  so  far  as 
submitted  to  them,  was  not  prepared  for  the  press.  They  took 
the  liberty  to  recommend  to  the  conference,  to  refer  the  whole  of 
what  had  been  done  in  the  business,  to  the  disposal  and  decision 
of  the  next  General  Conference.  The  subject  of  Mr.  Asbury's 
Life  was  accordingly  introduced  in  the  General  Conference  of  1820; 
when  a  committee  was  appointed  to  consider  and  report  on  it.  This 
committee  heard  part  of  doctor  Jennings'  MS.  read,  and  received 
from  him  personally,  such  other  information  as  he  thought  proper 
to  communicate.  They  stated  in  their  report,  "that  they  had  been 
led  to  doubt  whether  the  plan  of  the  work  was  the  most  suitable. 
They  recommended,  if  published,  it  should  be  done  in  two  distinct 
forms;  one  comprehending  Asbury's  Life;  the  other,  a  concise 
ecclesiastical  history.  The  conference  did  not  approve  the  latter 
project;  but  appointed  a  committee  of  three,  to  assist  doctor  Jen- 
nings, in  furnishing  such  further  facts  and  information,  respecting 
Bishop  Asbury,  as  could  be  obtained,  and  in  reviewing  the  MS.* 

"At  the  General  Conference  of  1824,  little  or  no  progress  hav- 
ing been  made  in  the  work,  a  resolution  was  passed,  respectfully 
to  request  doctor  Jennings,  to  deliver  the  materials  in  his  posses- 
sion, together  with  the  manuscript,  so  far  as  he  had  written  it,  into 
the  hands  of  the  Rev.  William  Beauchamp,  who  was  requested  by 
the  conference  to  become  the  biographer  in  the  place  of  doctor 
Jennings."  "The  true  amount  of  materials,"  say  they,  "with  which 
doctor  Jennings  was  furnished,  to  assist  him  in  preparing  a  life  of 
bishop  Asbury,  we  do  not  precisely  know.  But,  if  other  docu- 
ments, placed  in  his  hands,  exceeded  the  amount,  as  stated  by  him, 
in  the  proportion  of  the  five  or  six  letters,  brought  by  Mr.  Emory 
from  England,  the  difference  must  be  pretty  considerable."  They 
state  that,  the  exact  number  of  letters  is  twenty-five;  of  which 
twenty  were  written  by  Mr.  Asbury  himself;  two,  by  Mr.  What- 
coat;  and  three  by  other  persons. 

The  abstract,  we  have  given,  will  be  found  to  be  correct  by  a  re- 
ference to  the  distinct  statements  of  the  two  parties.  The  reader 
has  now  a  fair  opportunity  for  comparison,  and  a  sufficient  ground 
for  inference. 

After  the  high-toned  preliminary  of  the  Quarterly,  on  the  "bare- 
faced misrepresentations  and  shameless  prevarications"  which  they 
seem  to  have  discovered  in  Dr.  Jenning's  statement;  after  so  much 
ostentation  of  knowledge,  of  personal  information  upon  the  sub- 
ject, and  the  seemingly  ingenuous  profession  to  give  a  trust-worthy 
account  of  the  business — we  were  prepared  to  read  a  statement, 
at  variance  in  all  points,  with  that  of  the  biographer.  What  was 
our  astonishment  then,  to  behold  the  harmony  of  the  two  narra- 
tives, on  the  most  important  points!  And,  how  must  the  reader 
be  surprised  to  know,  on  comparing  them,  that  they  differ  very  lit- 
tle in  whatever  tends  to  affect  the  matter  at  issue. 

*This  committee  never  made  any  communication  to  doctor  Jennings. 


236 


We  request  the  reader  candidly  and  rigidly  to  compare  the  two 
statements.  We  said,  on  the  most  important  points,  they  harmonized. 
These  points  are, — the  character  of  the  contract  between  Mr. 
Roszel  and  the  biographer;  the  quantity  of  matter,  collected  for 
the  biography;  the  circumstances  attending  the  presentation  and 
rejection  of  his  manuscript,  and  the  conclusion  of  the  business. 
The  conditions  of  the  contract  between  Mr.  Roszell  and  the  biog- 
rapher, as  stated  by  the  latter,  are  not  disputed.  It  is  not  denied, 
that  subsequently  to  the  rejection  of  the  manuscript,  when  doctor 
Jennings,  being  asked,  consented  to  resume  the  work,  the  com- 
mittee acceded  to  these  conditions.  It  is  not  denied,  that  the  ma- 
terials, furnished,  were  insufficient,  for  the  compilation  of  a  re- 
spectable biography.  It  is  true  they  take  occasion  to  contradict 
the  biographer  in  one  clause  of  his  statement,  and  hence  very  un- 
fairly intimate  that  he  is  not  over  scrupulous  in  perverting  the 
truth  to  his  own  purposes.*  Instead  of  five  letters,  twenty-five, 
they  assert,  were  handed  to  doctor  Jennings.  The  Doctor  informs 
us  that  he  wrote  according  to  his  recollection,  having  reference  as 
he  supposes  to  those  alone,  which,  when  he  read  them,  in  his  opin- 
ion appeared  to  promise  him  assistance.  He  cannot  account  for 
his  recollection  having  fixed  on  five  or  six,  in  any  other  way.  Let 
it  be  remembered,  too,  that  even  this  additional  help  was  not  re- 
ceived until  after  the  composition,  examination,  and  rejection  of 
the  first  manuscript.  If  the  letters,  then,  had  contained  informa- 
tion enough  to  supply  all  deficiencies,  (which  they  did  not,)  they 
came  too  late  to  benefit  him  in  his  first  essay. 

The  Quarterly  does  not  say,  when  doctor  Jennings  "reported 
progress"  to  the  conference,  he  requested  his  manuscript  to  be  ex- 
amined for  publication;  nor  does  it  deny  that  the  Doctor,  instead 
of  himself  declining  the  business,  was  requested  by  the  conference 
to  give  up  all  the  papers  in  his  possession  and  his  appointment  as 
biographer.  No!  All  these  assertions  of  doctor  Jennings,  upon 
these  points,  we  are  bound  to  accredit; — seeing  they  are  not  deni- 
ed, of  course,  are  tacitly  admitted  in  a  narrative,  avowedly  framed 
in  opposition  to  him,  and  naturally  disposed  to  all  sustainable  con- 
tradiction. Ignorance,  they  cannot  plead,  as  the  ground  of  their 
admission:  for  they  will  not  have  us  suppose  that  they  are  unac- 
quainted with  any  thing  pertaining  to  this  subject.  "All  the  mem- 
bers of  the  committee  are  yet  living;"  "the  thing,  as  it  was,  is  fresh 
in  their  recollection;"  '-'while  such  an  amount  of  original  and  au- 
thentic documents  is  lying  before  us,  that  we  cannot  understand 
how  doctor  Jennings"  should  make  such  a  statement  of  proceed- 
ings. "He  must  be  aware,  too,  that  we  are  in  possession,  not  only 
oAnformation  on  the  subject,  but  of  personal  knowledge;  and, 
how  in  view  of  this,  he  could  persuade  himself  to  put  forth  such  a 
statement,  as  he  has,  is  utterly  beyond  even  our  power  to  conjec- 
ture, except  on  the  single  supposition  that  his  memory  had  entire- 
ly failed  him,  which,  in  regard  to  this  matter,  we  charitably  hope 

*  We  shall  notice  hereafter,  particularly  this  unchristian  insinuation  against 
doctor  Jennings. 


237 


has  been  the  case."  The  impartial  reviewer  of  both  statements 
will  find  no  difficulty  in  deciding,  that  this  deed  of  charity  may  be 
readily  dispensed  with,  seeing  the  correctness  of  the  Doctor's 
memory  is  fully  evinced,  by  the  consistency  of  its  report  with  the 
authentic  and  veracious  account  of  his  opponents.  If,  after  having 
been  taught  by  us  the  consequences,  derivable  from  their  admission 
of  the  most  important  parts  of  doctor  Jenning's  statement,  they 
shall  dare  to  come  forth,  and  deny  what,  before,  they  assented  to 
by  their  silence,  then  will  every  one  have  abundant  reason  to  ques- 
tion the  sincerity  of  their  lips. 

That  there  are  some  discrepancies  in  the  two  statements,  we  ac- 
knowledge; but  they  are  unimportant.  We  shall,  however,  notice 
them. 

Doctor  Jennings,  they  say,  has  left  the  public  mind  liable  to  mis- 
apprehension, by  confounding  two  distinct  committees.  The  com- 
mittee for  collecting  materials,  &c.  was  different  from  the  commit- 
tee appointed  by  the  conference  to  examine  the  manuscript.  This, 
say  they,  doctor  Jennings  must  have  known.  This,  we  say,  doctor 
Jennings  did  not  know,  till  after  the  rejection  of  his  work.  Nor 
could  he  anticipate  such  a  circumstance.  One  part  of  the  agree- 
ment was,  that  the  committee  who  employed  him,  should  be  pre- 
sent, when  materials  should  have  been  collected,  and  assist  to  select 
and  arrange  them.  We  could  not  but  suppose,  then,  that  the 
committee  for  collecting,  &c.  and  the  committee  of  examination 
were  identical;  especially,  when  he  received  no  official  or  private 
information  to  the  contrary.  If  doctor  Jennings  left  the  reader 
"liable  to  misapprehension,"  he  was  himself  under  the  same  mis- 
apprehension, when  his  manuscript  was  examined.  His  not  hav- 
ing been  informed  on  this  point,  is  one  of  the  things  which  he  has 
never  yet  understood. 

"Dr.  Jennings,"  say  they;  "states  erroneously,  that  Mr.  Roszel 
was  chairman  of  the  committee."  The  Doctor  speaks  doubtfully: 
"who  was  chairman  of  the  committee,  perhaps," — is  his  phrase- 
ology. 

They  dislike  the  Doctor  should  say,  "the  secretary  was  directed 
to  serve  him  with  the  notes,"  &,c.  They  acted  more  politely: — "if 
the  biographer  request,  the  secretary  shall  furnish  him  with  notes." 
They  "do  not  believe  that  a  copy  was  ever  either  asked  or 
'served.'  "  It  is  true,  it  was  never  "asked;"  but  it  was  left  at  his 
dwelling,  or  "served,"  which  is  a  very  appropriate  term.  The  notes 
are  now  before  us;  and,  on  application  to  doctor  Jennings  any  one 
will  be  permitted  to  see  an  exact  copy  of  them,  which,  though 
ordered  to  be  "furnished,  if  requested,"  was  "served"  without  re- 
quest; perhaps  by  Mr.  Waugh 

Doctor  Jennings  says,  that  he  was  presented  with  $200.  The  re- 
viewers state,  $250  were  voted  to  him,  though  only  $225  were  be- 
stowed. The  Doctor  admits  that  he  may  have  erred  in  this, — still 
he  knows  not  why  $250  weie  voted,  and  only  $225  sent  him  by 
the  hand  of  Mr.  Roszel. 
31 


238 


We  have  thus  noticed  the  principal  discrepancies  of  the  two 
narratives,  and  we  find  them  all  to  be  unimportant; — by  no  means 
affecting  the  matter  at  issue.  There  is  one  particular  in  the  re- 
viewers' account,  we  have  forborne  to  touch  in  this  comparison; 
because,  instead  of  being  a  legitimate  part  of  the  statement,  we 
believed  it,  an  unproved  assumption.  If  admitted,  it  would  estab- 
lish all  they  wish.  We  are  therefore,  willing,  and  we  think,  not 
unable  to  demonstrate  its  incorrectness.  It  is  asserted,  that  the 
work,  thus  presented,  was  "a  folio,  manuscript  book,  carefully 
bound,  regularly  paged,  divided  into  chapters,  and  fairly  written  out 
for  the  press."  On  this,  is  based  the  insinuated  charge  of  mental 
incompetency  to  compose  a  biography.  Their  argument  may  be 
fairly  stated  thus: — 

Doctor  Jennings  presented  to  a  committee  a  fairly  written  out, 
manuscript  biography,  to  be  examined  for  publication.  The  com- 
mittee consisted  of  seven  persons,  of  reputable  judgment,  knowl- 
edge and  impartiality.  They  were  employed  more  than  a  week, 
in  successive  sittings  of  six  hours  per  day,  reading  the  MS  twice 
over,  with  all  the  attention,  fidelity  and  candour  of  which  they  were 
capable.  They  unanimously  rejected  it,  as  unfit  for  publication. 
Now,  as  doctor  Jennings  had  been  employed,  several  years,  in  the 
composition  of  the  biography;  and,  as  the  "conference  was  disposed 
to  render  him  prompt  encouragement,"  and  the  committee  to  afford 
him  effectual  aid,  the  conclusion  is,  that  mental  incompetency  or 
culpable  indolence  on  the  part  of  the  author,  was  the  veritable 
cause  of  the  unfitness  of  the  MS.  for  publication. 

It  will,  unhesitatingly,  be  acknowledged,  should  any  one  of  the 
data  be  false,  then  is  the  conclusion  false.  If  the  report  of  the 
candour  and  intelligence  of  the  committee  be  unsustained;  then 
cannot  the  charge  of  indolence  or  incompetence  be  sustained.  If 
adequate  and  prompt  assistance  were  not  rendered  him  by  the  con- 
ference and  committee,  then  no  inference  can  be  drawn  against  the 
character  of  the  biographer.  Although  one  of  these  suppositions 
could,  probably,  be  supported,  and  the  other  certainly  established, 
we  will  now  notice  only  the  first  postulate;  believing  that  we  can 
show  its  incorrectness,  consequently  the  fallacy  of  the  whole  argu- 
ment. 

We  propose,  then,  to  demonstrate,  that  doctor  Jennings  did  not 
submit  his  manuscript  biography,  to  be  examined  for  publication. 
His  solemn  asseveration  in  affirmation  of  this  point,  will  have  its 
due  weight  with  those  acquainted  with  his  character,  and  with  all 
impartial  men,  when  it  is  found  not  to  be  contradicted  by  any  tes- 
timony. And  it  is  true  that  there  is  no  sustained  denial  of  it  in 
the  statement  of  his  opponents.  We  glanced  at  this  circumstance 
in  the  comparison  of  the  two  narratives:  we  will  now  speak  more 
largely  concerning  it.  Let  us  review  their  account.  "Doctor 
Jennings,"  say  they,  "reported  successful  progress  in  the  biogra- 
phy:"— true,  but  not  a  termination  of  his  work,  or  its  suitableness 
for  the  press.  "The  conference,  hereupon,  appointed  a  committee 
to  examine  it,  with  a  view  to  its  publication."  This  but  shows  in 
what  way  the  conference  construed  the  report  of  doctor  Jennings: 


239 


because  such  was  their  construction,  it  does  not  follow  certainly, 
that  such  was  the  intention  of  the  biographer.  We  appeal  again  to 
the  statement;  we  care  not  for  the  constructions  of  conference  or 
committee; — does  their  own  narrative  say,  either  directly  or  by  just 
implication,  that  the  MS.  was  presented  for  publication?  It  does 
not — "successful  progress"  only,  was  reported  in  the  MS. — And 
what  of  all  this?  A  mechanic  may  "report  successful  progress"  in 
a  machine  he  is  framing:  is  it,  therefore,  inferred,  that  his  machine 
is  finished,  and  ready  for  public  examination? 

It  will  be  asked,  "why  did  not  the  biographer,  when  he  under- 
stood a  committee  was  appointed  to  examine  his  MS.,  avow  it 
was  not  his  intention  to  have  it  published?"  Because  he  fully 
believed,  that  the  committee,  for  collecting  materials,  would  be  the 
committee  of  examination;  and  they,  he  knew,  were  well  aware  of 
the  condition  that  sets  forth, — "provided  also,  the  committee  shall 
be  present,  when  materials  shall  have  been  collected,  to  assist  in 
selecting  and  arranging  them."  He,  therefore,  confidently  be- 
lieved, that  the  committee  would  act  in  accordance  with  the  impli- 
cation of  that  condition; — not  examining  the  MS.,  as  if  submitted 
for  the  press,  but  in  view  of  revising  and  shaping  it,  as  their  judg- 
ment might  dictate.  Instead  of  this  a  new  committee  was  appoin- 
ted. This  doctor  Jennings  has  never  yet  understood.  That  doc- 
tor Jennings  thought  the  two  committees  identical,  we  have  addi- 
tional evidence  from  the  fact,  that  he  knew  Mr.  Roszel,  who  was 
on  the  first  committee,  was  also  on  the  second.  Mr.  Reed,  too,  a 
member  of  the  former  committee,  called  upon  him  for  the  MS.,  and 
did  not  then  state  to  him,  or  even  give  him  a  hint,  that  a  different 
committee  had  been  appointed.  Nor  did  he,  as  before  stated,  re- 
ceive official  notice  or  private  intimation  of  this  in  any  way. 

Hence  we  have  another  argument,  that  doctor  Jennings  did  not 
submit  his  work,  ready  for  the  press.  The  condition  that  the  com- 
mittee would  be  present,  when  the  materials  should  have  been  col- 
lected, to  assist  him  to  select  and  arrange  them,  precludes  even  the 
shadow  of  a  supposition  that  the  MS.  was  submitted  in  a  fit  state 
for  publication.*  He,  therefore,  very  properly  blames  the  commit- 
tee for  acting  so  inconsistently, — so  much  at  variance  with  the 
character  of  the  contract.  -Nor  let  them  say  that,  being  a  different 
committee,  they  were  not  obligated  by  the  afore  mentioned  condi- 
tions; nor,  that  knowing  nothing  of  them,  ignorance  would  have 
prevented  their  fulfilment.    The  conference  acted  unjustifiably  in 

*When  Mr.  Nelson  Reed  called  for  the  manuscript  and  gave  no  intimation 
that  the  writer  was  expected  to  accompany  it,  doctor  Jennings  was  greatly 
surprised.  He  expected  it  until  Mr.  Reed  had  received  the  book  and  was 
retiring;  when,  finding  that  the  committee  were  about  to  examine  his  place- 
book  without  his  assistance,  he  was  greatly  embarrassed,  and  following  Mr. 
Reed  to  the  door,  in  a  word  or  two,  intimated  to  him,  that  the  w  ork  was  not 
in  a  fit  state  to  be  read  by  the  committee,  in  that  manner.  Whether  Mr. 
Reed  understood  him  or  not,  he  cannot  know.  Mr.  Roszel  had  conducted 
towards  him  so  properly  in  every  other  instance,  he  thought  it  unaccounta- 
ble, that  the  committee  was  not  informed  of  the  conditions  of  the  existing 
engagement. 


240 


appointing  another  committee,  by  which  the  contract  would  neces- 
sarily be  annulled.  Messrs.  Reed,  Roszel  and  Wells,  constituting 
three  of  the  five,  on  the  first  committee,  were  appointed  members 
of  the  second,  consisting  of  seven  persons.  They,  at  least,  ought 
to  have  known  the  nature  of  the  agreement.  Mr.  Roszel,  who  was 
himself  the  contractor,  must  have  clearly  understood  the  intentions 
of  doctor  Jennings  in  presenting  his  MS: — and  it  is  curious  if  he 
permitted  the  three  remaining  members  to  be  ignorant  on  a  point 
so  important. 

Beside  the  evidence,  already  adduced,  we  have  an  irresistable 
inferential  argument,  arising  from  an  examination  of  the  MS.  The 
biography,  examined  by  the  committee,  embracing  269  pages, 
which  now  lie  before  us,  contains  no  account  of  the  birth,  parent- 
age, boyhood,  youth,  or  conversion  of  Mr.  Asbury,  nor  any  infor- 
mation concerning  the  commencement  of  his  ministerial  career. 
This  is  not  all:  it  is  only  extended  to  the  time  of  his  ordination, — 
we  are  told  nothing  of  his  life  posterior  to  1784,  when  he  had  been 
only  thirteen  years  in  America;  in  course,  the  remainder  of  his 
life,  upwards  of  thirty  years,  is  wholly  untouched;  nor  have  we 
in  it,  any  account  of  his  death!  Now  we  ask,  is  it  possible, 
that  any  man  with  common  sense  could  ever  have  thought  of  sub- 
mitting so  incomplete  a  sketch,  as  a  biography,  ready  for  the  press? 
Yet  this,  the  Quarterly  would  have  us  to  believe; — that  a  few  quires 
of  foolscap  paper,  roughly  bound  in  boards,  written  out  by  three  dif- 
ferent hands  at  least,  containing  a  few  extracts  from  the  journal  of 
Mr.  Asbury,  with  remarks  of  the  biographer  interspersed,  and  in- 
tended as  a  specimen  of  what  the  journal  afforded;  without  a  single 
item,  concerning  his  birth,  or  death,  and  omitting  thirty  of  the  most 
important  years  of  his  life; — that  such  a  work,  on  so  much  paper, 
thus  filled,  constituted  "a  folio  manuscript  book,  carefully  bound, 
regularly  paged,  divided  into  chapters,  and  fairly  written  out  for  the 
press,"  and  iulended  by  the  writer  to  be  a  sufficient  biography! 
Whom  here  are  we  to  charge  with  foolishness?  Have  we  not 
grounds  for  implicating  both  the  judgment  and  candour  of  the 
committee,  who  acted,  and  the  editor  of  the  Quarterly,  who  at- 
tempts to  vindicate  their  doings?  Beside  the  deficiency  of  the  MS. 
in  facts,  there  are  inaccuracies  in  its  grammar,  tautology  in  some 
parts,  and  sometimes  inappropriate  epithets  and  language,  which, 
while  they  argue  nothing  against  the  information  or  good  taste  of 
the  biographer,  indicate  the  necessity  and  obvious  intention  of  a 
revision;  and  sufficiently  prove,  that  the  author  could  not.  have 
deemed  it  in  a  suitable  state  for  publication.  We  speak  this  the 
more  confidently,  inasmuch  as  we  have  seen  a  second  and  revised 
MS.  of  the  work,*  in  which  inaccuracies  are  corrected,  redundan- 
cies retrenched,  and,  in  fact,  the  philological  defects  of  the  first 

*  Immediately  after  the  first  committee  met  and  reviewed  the  engagement 
with  doctor  Jennings,  he  proceeded  to  correct  and  rewrite  his  work.  This 
revised  and  rewritten  copy  of  150  pages,  on  large  sheets,  was  submitted  to 
the  examination  of  the  committee  appointed  by  the  general  conference  of 
1820. 


841 


MS.  satisfactorily  amended.  Any  man  who  is  disposed  to  doubt 
any  part  of  this  statement,  on  application  to  doctor  Jennings  will 
be  permitted  to  inspect  for  himself,  when  he  cannot  fail  to  be  sa- 
tisfied of  the  truth  of  this  account,  in  all  its  details. 

"But  why  so  carefully  bound!" — it  is  asked.  After  all,  this  "care- 
fully bound,  folio  book"  is  no  other  than  a  kind  of  day-book, 
roughly  bound,  and  used  for  convenience.  "It  is  'regularly  paged1 
and  'divided'  into  chapters'!  '  This  is  flat!  Who,  that  is  at  all  ac- 
quainted with  writing,  does  not  know,  that  nothing  is  more  com- 
mon than  to  page  a  MS.  whether  intended  or  not  for  the  press? 
And  the  operation  of  dividing  into  chapters  and  paragraphs  be- 
comes a  kind  of  instinct  in  one  who  deals  much  in  composition; 
in  truth,  is  as  natural  as  that  he  should  punctuate  regularly:  and 
this  too,  whether  the  MS.  be  intended  or  not  for  the  press.  But 
there  is  a  peculiar  reason  for  this  division  into  chapters.  The  work 
was  to  be  submitted  to  a  committee.  The  arrangement  therefore,  of 
the  information  and  facts  collected,  in  judicious  portions,  under 
appropriate  captions,  was  intended  to  facilitate  the  labours  of  the 
committee  in  inspecting,  selecting,  and  arranging  the  materials  of 
the  MS.  "But  why  so  fairly  written  out?"  All  that  can  be  said 
in  truth  on  this  point  is,  that  generally,  the  penmanship  is  legible, 
sometimes,  however,  quite  obscure.  Besides,  as  noticed  before, 
three  different  autographs,  at  least,  are  discernible  in  the  MS. 

We  shall  sum  up  our  argument  under  this  head,  thus: 

1st.  Doctor  Jennings  solemnly  affirms,  that  he  did  not  submit  his 
manuscript  biography,  as  being  prepared  for  the  press.  In  care- 
fully looking  over  the  statement  of  his  opponents,  we  find  nothing 
to  nullify  this  affirmation.  They  never  once  state  that  he  even  in- 
timated a  wish  to  have  his  work  examined  in  view  of  its  publication. 
Their  strongest  language  is,  "he  reported  successful  progress." 
Now,  no  matter  how  conference  or  committee  understood  this — 
their  constructions,  or  rather  misconstructions,  avail  nothing:  we 
are  bound  to  accredit  the  unqualified  and  uncontradicted  affirma- 
tion of  the  biographer. 

2d.  The  nature  of  the  agreement,  between  Mr.  Roszel  and  the 
biographer,  affords  another  argument.  By  this  agreement  the  com- 
mittee were  obligated  to  be  present  when  materials  should  have 
been  collected,  to  assist  in  preparing  the  MS.  for  the  press,  by  se- 
lection, arrangement,  #c.  Doctor  Jennings  could  not,  therefore, 
have  contemplated  the  immediate  publication  of  his  work. 

3d.  Our  last  argument  arises  from  a  view  of  the  character  of  the 
MS.  It  gives  us  no  account  of  more  than  thirty  years,  which  in 
course  included  by  far  the  most  important  and  interesting  events 
in  the  life  of  Mr.  Asbury.  It  has  various  extempore  inaccuracies 
of  style  and  grammar,  and  is  not  unfrequently  incorrect  in  its  re- 
ference to  dates  and  authorities.  Now,  supposing  doctor  Jennings 
to  possess  common  sense,  he  could  not  have  thought  of  submitting 
so  incomplete  and  defective  a  composition  as  a  biography,  to  be 
examined  with  a  view  to  its  publication; — "his  best  effort  as  the 
author  of  Mr.  Asbury's  life." 


242 


We  therefore,  conclude  that  so  far,  the  charge  of  incompetence 
against  the  biographer  is  invalid,  since  the  MS.  was  not  a  fair  sam- 
ple of  the  author's  ability. 

"Why  then,"  they  ask,  "was  not  his  work  prepared  for  publica- 
tion!" "Surely  he  had  time  sufficient,  and  great  encouragement: 
why  did  he  not  make  his  MS.  ready  for  the  press!"  We  trust  we 
can  answer  this  in  a  manner,  which  shall  convince  every  one  that 
the  defectiveness  of  the  MS.  biography  was  attributable  to  other 
causes  than  to  the  inability  or  indolence  of  its  author.  We  say, 
then,  the  reason  was,  want  of  necessary  materials;  which  we  will 
prove. 

1st.  Inferentially  from  the  fact,  that  though  the  committee,  who 
employed  doctor  Jennings,  must  have  known  the  amount  and  kind 
of  materials  furnished,  they  have  not,  in  the  slightest  particular, 
contradicted  his  statement  concerning  the  sparsity  of  requisite  in- 
formation; except  in  one,  and  this  we  have  noticed.  We  allude 
to  the  letters  brought  from  England  by  Mr.  Emory.  That  it  may 
be  borne  in  mind,  however,  by  the  reader,  we  repeat,  these  letters 
were  never  furnished,  till  after  doctor  Jennings  had  consented  to 
resume  the  biography,  of  course,  cannot  be  included  in  the  amount 
of  materials,  out  of  which  the  biographer  framed  his  first  MS.  We 
cannot  but  notice,  here,  the  ungracious  insinuation  of  the  "Quar- 
terly," conveyed  in  the  following:  "The  true  amount  of  'materials,' 
with  which  doctor  Jennings  was  furnished,  to  assist  him  in  prepar- 
ing a  life  of  Bishop  Asbury,  we  do  not  precisely  know.  But  if 
other  documents  placed  in  his  hands  exceeded  the  amount  as  stat- 
ed by  him,  in  the  proportion  of  the  'five  or  six  letters  brought  by 
Mr.  Emory  from  England,'  the  difference  must  be  pretty  consider- 
able." If  the  Quarterly  be  here  the  organ  of  speech  for  the  com- 
mittee, we  are  compelled  to  believe  that  the  "difference"  between 
their  words  and  truth,  "is  pretty  considerable."  What!  engaged 
to  furnish  the  necesssary  anecdotes,  facts  and  documents,  and  not 
"know"  the  "quantity"  of  information  furnished!  Impossible' 
"Their  memories  must  have  entirely  failed  them,"  "which,  in  regard 
to  this  matter,  we  charitably  hope  has  been  the  case,"  or  they  have 
stooped  to  a  degrading  untruth,  to  blast  the  reputation  of  an  inno- 
cent man.  If  the  Editor  of  the  "Magazine"  be  the  speaker,  we 
appeal  to  an  enlightened  community  to  determine,  whether  he  does 
not  act  beneath  the  character  of  a  christian,  and  a  gentleman,  when 
possessing  sufficient  "information,"  and  "personal  knowledge,"  to 
detect  falsehood,  if  there  were  any,  he  ventures  an  unsupported 
and  malignant  insinuation  against  the  veracity  of  a  christian  min- 
ister? 

2d.  So  far  as  the  testimony  of  a  respectable  minister  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  will  go,  we  have  another  evidence  of 
the  want  of  materials.  The  biographer,  after  the  reception  of  the 
letters  from  England,  affording  him  the  last  information  he  obtain- 
ed, had  an  interview  with  Mr.  Soule,  who  entirely  accorded  with 
the  Doctor  in  opinion,  that  the  materials,  already  furnished,  were 
insufficient. 


243 


3d.  The  proceedings  of  the  General  Conference  of  1820,  in  re- 
ference to  the  biography,  affords  another  very  conclusive  proof. 
The  Quarterly  says,  a  committee  of  three  was  appointed  "to  assist 
doctor  Jennings  in  furnishing  such  other  facts  and  information,  as 
could  be  obtained,  respecting  Bishop  Asbury."  Would  the  con- 
ference have  done  this,  unless  with  the  belief,  that  the  facts  and 
information,  already  gathered,  were  insufficient  for  the  compilation 
of  a  respectable  biography?  Is  it  not  a  plain  confession,  there  was 
a  lack  of  materials? 

4th.  The  character  of  the  MS.  bears  strong  presumptive  evidence 
of  this  same  dearth  of  materials.  Would  any  man,  in  his  right  mind, 
giving  a  biography  of  another,  neglect  to  insert,  in  the  account,  the 
most  important  particulars  of  his  history,  if  they  were  obtainable. 
Had  doctor  Jennings  have  known  any  thing  satisfactory  of  Mr. 
Asbury's  birth,  his  conversion,  call  to  the  ministry;  of  his  corres- 
pondences with  other  ministers — his  address  to  the  conferences, 
&c.  &c.  would  he  not  have  communicated  it  in  his  MS.  It  is 
true,  that  a  sermon  was  preached  by  Mr.  Snethen  and  printed,  af- 
fording some  information  on  some  of  these  subjects;  inasmuch, 
however,  as  it  was  incomplete,  and  in  a  degree  unauthentic,  Dr. 
Jennings  determined  to  defer  any  account  of  these  matters,  till  he 
should  lay  his  MS.  before  the  committee,  who  might  from  authentic 
and  sufficient  documents  supply  the  deficiency. 

We  are  compelled  then  to  conclude, — from  the  character  of  the 
MS.  from  the  avowed  opinion  of  one  of  their  principal  ministers, 
(Mr.  Soule,)  from  the  uncontradicted  statement  of  doctor  Jennings, 
and  from  their  own  account,  that  there  was  a  want  of  materials; — 
and  this  was  why  a  sufficient  biography  was  never  compiled. 

"Why,  then,  did  the  doctor  request  a  meeting  of  the  committee, 
and  submit  his  work  in  so  incomplete  a  state,  to  their  inspection?" 
The  answer  is  plain: — he  wished  to  bring  the  business  to  a  close. 
From  the  MS.,  which  ought  to  have  been  considered  as  a  com- 
mon-place-book, prepared  for  that  particular  purpose,  when  laid 
open  before  them,  the  committee  might  learn  how  much  informa- 
tion had  been  collected,  and  how  much  was  still  needed.  If  no 
more  materials  could  be  furnished,  he  wished  to  know  what  course 
they  would  advise  him  to  pursue.  And  if  the  design  of  framing  a 
Biography  was  not  to  be  abandoned,  the  committee  would  then 
perceive  more  fully  the  necessity  of  bestirring  itself  in  the  obtain- 
ment  of  the  necessary  information. 

It  is  strange  that  blame  should  be  bestowed  on  the  Biographer, 
for  persevering  in  his  purpose  of  writing  a  Biography.  "If,"  says 
the  Quarterly,  "Doctor  Jennings,  even  after  engaging  to  become 
the  Biographer  of  Bishop  Asbury,  on  becoming  convinced  that, 
with  his  want  of  sufficient  personal  acquaintance  with  the  subject, 
the  documents  and  materials  were  altogether  inadequate,  had 
thought  proper  to  decline  the  task,  with  any  reasonable  notice  to 
the  committee,  and  without  subjecting  them  to  useless  expense, 
we  apprehend  no  censure  would  or  could  have  been  attached  to 
him  from  any  quarter.  This  would  have  been  the  only  course  of 
propriety."   We  take  the  liberty  to  differ  from  the  Quarterly.  Had 


244 


doctor  Jennings  have  been  convinced,  not  only  that  the  "docu- 
ments and  materials,"  already  furnished,  were  "inadequate"  but 
that  an  adequate  supply  never  could  be  furnished,  then  was  his 
course  plain — by  all  means  he  should  have  declined  the  task.  But 
he  waited  in  hope:  he  depended  on  the  committee  who  employed 
him,  for  such  documents  and  facts  as  should  be  necessary;  and  the 
discouragements  which  afterwards  were  multiplied,  had  scarcely 
commenced  when  he  received  the  money; — and,  therefore,  does  he 
deserve  much  praise  for  maintaining  to  the  last  his  agreement  with 
the  committee,  under  so  many  disadvantages.  Contending  with  a 
multiplicity  of  impediments,  he  continued  patiently  and  persever- 
ino*ly  to  perform  his  part  of  the  task,  as  well  as  circumstances 
would  permit.  Had  the  committee  done  likewise,  a  Biography, 
most  probably,  would  not  now  be  wanting.  It  was  their  business 
to  determine  the  possibility  or  impossibilty  of  procuring  the  ne- 
cessary materials,  and  if  convinced  of  the  impossibility,  it  became 
them,  and  not  the  Biographer,  "to  decline  the  task."  They  should 
have  communicated  "reasonable  notice,"  to  the  conference  who 
appointed  them,  and  have  satisfied  the  author  whom  they  had  em- 
ployed, and  we  apprehend  no  censure  could  or  would  have  at- 
tached to  them  from  any  quarter,  if  they  had  abandoned  the  work. 
They  were  at  no  additional  expense  after  the  two  hundred  or  two 
hundred  and  twenty-five  dollars  were  sent  by  Mr.  Roszel,  the  re- 
ceipt of  which  served  to  impose  perseverance  upon  the  doctor. 

We  think  we  have  fully  confuted  the  insinuated  charge  of  in- 
competency or  indolence  on  the  part  of  the  Biographer;  established 
the  fact  of  a  dearth  of  materials  being  the  cause  why  a  sufficient 
Biography  was  never  written;  satisfactorily  shown  the  object  of 
the  author  in  requesting  a  meeting  of  the  committee;  and  proved 
the  propriety  of  doctor  Jennings'  conduct  in  not  declining  the  task 
under  so  many  inauspicious  circumstances. 

The  second  insinuated  charge  is  retainance  in  his  hands  of 
money,  to  which  he  has  no  just  claims.    Was  doctor  Jennings 
entitled  or  was  he  not,  to  a  compensation  for  his  services?  The 
answer  to  this  question  depends  on  a  single  circumstance; — 
whether  or  not  the  Biographer  failed  to  perform  his  part  of  the 
task.    From  what  we  have  said,  any  unprejudiced  person  will  feel 
warranted  in  answering — he  did  not  fail.    He    did  all,  that  any 
man  could  have  been  justly  required  to  perform,  with  the  means 
afforded  him.    The  committee  failed  in  supplying  necessary  ma- 
terials; they  dismissed  him  from  their  employment,  as  Biographer; 
not  he  himself:  consequently,  they,  alone,  violated  the  contract— 
and  he  became  justly  entitled  to  a  proper  compensation.  Even 
could  it  be  proved,  (which  is  very  far  from  the  truth,)  that  doctor 
Jennings  was  incapable  of  writing  a  Biography,  he  could  still, 
with  justice,  retain  any  remuneration  made  to  him;  on  the  same 
principle  that  an  artist  could  hold  legal  claim  to  money,  voluntarily 
and  unconditionally  paid  him  in  advance  for  services,  which  sub- 
sequent trial,  should  prove  him  unable  to  perform  to  entire  satis- 
faction of  both  parties; — except  some  specific  condition  in  the 
contract  hindered.    But  doctor  Jennings  stoops  not  to  such  a  re- 


245 


fuge.  The  MS.  he  offers  to  the  inspection  of  any  one  who  may  wish 
to  examine  it;  convinced  that  its  character  will  fully  sustain  the 
credit  of  his  competency  and  the  justness  of  his  claim  to  remu- 
neration. 

A  compensation  was,  then,  due  to  the  Biographer:  The  next 
question  concerns  the  amount.  We  here  appeal  to  the  judgment 
of  the  impartial;  for,  as  no  specific  compensation  was  determined 
on  by  the  committee,  equity  alone  must  decide  the  question. 

Let  it  be  known,  then,  that  the  MS.  submitted  to  the  inspection 
of  the  committee  of  examination,  &c,  contained  two  hundred  and 
sixty-nine  folio  pages.  This  the  committee  admits.  A  portion  of 
the  Biography,  consisting  of  seventy-nine  pages,  was  written  out, 
but  not  presented,  with  the  other,  to  the  committee.  Subsequently 
to  the  rejection  of  the  269  pages,  by  the  examining  committee, 
and  the  second  meeting  of  the  first  committee,  when  he  consented 
to  recommence  the  Biography,  he  revised  the  original  MS.  and 
rewrote  one  hundred  and  fifty  pages.  "But  whence  so  much  work 
with  so  few  materials?"  "How  could  so  voluminous  a  MS.  be 
wrought  out  of  so  sparse  and  imperfect  information?"  It  is  easily 
answered.  Doctor  Jennings,  considering  on  the  imperfection  of 
the  facts,  documents  and  anecdotes  furnished,  and  the  tedious 
monotony  of  Mr.  Asbury's  journal,  perceived  the  necessity  of  in- 
troducing appropriate  extraneous  matter,  in  order  to  give  any  thing 
like  interest  or  utility  to  his  Biography.  Contemplating  Mr.  As- 
bury  as  the  great  apostle  of  Methodism  in  America,  he  deemed  it 
would  neither  be  irrelative  nor  uninteresting  to  discourse  some- 
what on  the  peculiar  system,  with  which  he  was  identified.  In 
doing  this,  he  was  led  to  bestow  some  attention  on  the  circum- 
stances, attending  its  origin;  by  which  he  was  still  further  con- 
ducted to  an  investigation  of  the  general  causes  of  reformation, 
and  the  method  in  which  it  is  most  frequently  effected.  Hence,  for 
the  sake  of  illustration,  he  glances  cursorily  at  the  different  reli- 
gious changes  of  ancient  and  modern  times,  in  view  principally 
of  the  fact,  that  unofficial,  individual  exertion,  is  the  general  agent 
in  operating  reformations. 

This  is  the  reason  why  the  MS.  was  so  voluminous.  And  when 
we  consider  the  toil  and  time  which  must  have  been  expended  in 
so  extensive  an  investigation,  together  with  the  labour  of  penning, 
correcting  and  transcribing/owr  hundred  and  ninety-four  folio  pages, 
(the  sum  total  of  pages  written  out,)  will  any  one  be  so  iniquitous 
as  to  pronounce  two  hundred  and  twenty-five  dollars  a  more  than 
equivalent  compensation?  Certainly  not.  Justly  then  does  doc- 
tor Jennings  retain  the  two  hundred  and  twenty-five  dollars;  which 
as  before  stated,  is  the  only  remuneration  he  ever  received. 

Here  would  end  the  "chapter,"  if  permitted  by  the  Quarterly. 
But,  "we  would  like  to  know,"  says  its  editor,  "how  it  happens 
that  doctor  Jennings  comes  to  be  still  in  possession,  as  he  inti- 
mates, of  'two  volumes  of  manuscript  which  he  wrote  in  view  of 
Mr.  Asbury's  Life?'  "  Why,  thus  it  happens.  Having  been  dis- 
missed from  his  employment  by  an  act  of  the  General  Conference, 
32 


246 


and  no  arrangement  having  been  made  respecting  the  completion 
of  the  work,  which  had  the  least  respect  to  the  feelings  or  reputa- 
tion of  doctor  Jennings,  was  it  reasonable  to  suppose  that  he  would 
let  go  his  manuscripts,  which  could  not  have  been  used  in  a  man- 
ner consistent  with  his  design,  unless  he  had  been  in  some  way 
concerned  in  completing  them;  especially  as  he  had  every  good  rea- 
son to  fear  they  would  be  disposed  of,  in  a  manner  unsatisfactory  to 
himself,  since  so  much  of  his  work  as  had  been  read  by  the  committee, 
had  been  formally  condemned;  and  no  attention  had  been  paid  to 
him,  by  either  of  the  committees,  appointed  to  aid  him  in  procuring 
materials?  He  determined,  very  properly,  therefore,  that  they  ought 
to  remain  in  his  possession.  It  is  said,  however,  the  MS.  was  paid 
for  by  the  committee  and  was  their  property.  It  was  condemned 
by  the  committee,  whilst  the  materials  were  in  a  crude  and  an 
unfinished  state,  and  the  money  paid  to  him  was  an  inadequate 
compensation  for  the  toil  and  time  which  he  had  then  devoted  to 
the  work.  Besides,  the  dismissal  in  the  manner  in  which  it  was 
done,  was  arbitrary  and  insolent; — such  as  justified  resistance;  a 
violation  of  the  agreement  made  with  him;  by  which  he  considers 
all  right  to  the  MS.  forfeited  on  their  part,  even  on  the  supposition 
that  the  remuneration  for  his  services  had  been  much  more  satis- 
factory.* It  is  presumed  that  the  subject  was  so  considered  by 
them,  since  they  have  made  no  subsequent  call.  And  it  is  be- 
lieved we  should  have  heard  no  more  about  it,  had  not  doctor 
Jennings  become  active  and  conspicuous  in  the  work  of  reform. 

In  conclusion  we  beg  leave  to  submit  an  hypothesis,  concerning 
the  reason  why  the  work  of  the  biographer  was  unacceptable  to  his 
employers,  and  one  which  is  another  good  reason,  why  he  ought  not 
to  have  delivered  it,  upon  such  an  application.  It  is  this,  that  the  prin- 
ciples frequently  advocated  in  the  MS.  biography,  and  the  general 
spirit  of  it,  were  greatly  at  variance  with  the  now  known  opinions 
of  the  committee.  The  principles  and  spirit  evinced  throughout 
the  work  are  all  liberal:  they  look  frowningly  upon  priestly  aspira- 
tions for  power  and  the  enforced  servility  of  laymen.  Is  it  not  easy 
to  understand,  then,  why  the  members  of  the  committee,  who,  at 
this  day  are  staunch  advocates  of  the  powers,  that  be,  looked  not 
with  pleasure  on  the  work?  This  is  not  altogether  hypothesis. 
Among  several  other  reasons,  (not  very  reasonable,)  for  the  rejec- 
tion of  the  MS.,  they  declare  this  to  be  one;  "it  contains  a  variety 
of  sentiments,  on  doctrines  and  ecclesiastical  polity ,  which  we  deem 
at  least  questionable."  We  do  indeed,  believe  this  was  their 
strongest  reason.  And  what  wonder?  Even  at  that  period  "reform" 
began  to  be  so  much  talked  about,  they  became  very  sensitive  to 
whatever  bore  an  ill  aspect  toward  a  clerical  monopoly  of  power. 

*Dr.  Jennings  informs  the  writer  of  this  appendix,  that  the  call  for  the 
manuscript  and  papers,  was  altogether  out  of  the  way.  No  interview  was 
asked  or  demanded  for  the  purpose  of  fixing  upon  any  preliminaries,  re- 
specting their  delivery.  After  the  rising  of  the  conference,  a  most  uncere- 
monious call  was  made,  and  all  but  the  manuscripts  were  delivered  to  the 
messenger  of  Mr  Beauchamp. 


247 


In  looking  over  their  notes,  too,  we  find  them  generally  taking  ex- 
ceptions to  those  passages,  which  we  would  naturally  suppose  un« 
savoury  to  an  Episcopal  Methodist.  For  instance,  in  remarking 
on  one  passage  they  ask,  "does  not  this  indicate  too  great  a  desire 
to  have  a  stroke  at  the  priests?"  In  another  place  they  query, 
"whether  the  private  members  of  the  church  were  made  guardians 
of  true  orthodoxy,  &c.  &c.  But  the  MS.  and  the  committee's  notes 
may  be  seen  any  time,  on  application  to  doctor  Jennings,  so  that 
any  one  who  is  inquisitive  may  learn  for  himself,  what  probably 
was  the  true  cause  of  the  rejection  of  his  work. 

Thus  have  we  seen  the  unfair  treatment  of  doctor  Jennings  by 
the  committee;  who  first  did  him  injustice  by  passing  their  opinion 
on  his  work,  as  if  submitted,  ready  for  publication;  and  then,  en- 
deavouring to  vindicate  themselves  through  the  medium  of  the 
Quarterly,  cruelly  aspersed  both  his  moral  and  intellectual  charac- 
ter; subjecting  his  honesty,  as  well  as  competency  to  foul  suspi- 
cion. We  think  the  impartial  reader  will  acknowledge,  that  we 
have  fixed  the  charge  of  unfair  and  cruel  dealing  upon  the  com- 
mittee, and  have  wiped  away  the  aspersions  made  by  them,  on  the 
character  of  a  christian  minister. 


THE  END. 


I 


